View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Social Networks and Individual Creativity: The Role of Individual Differences

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Social Networks and Individual Creativity: The Role of Individual Differences
Language: English
Authors: Kim, Sang Kyun, Shin, Shung Jae, Shin, Jiseon, Miller, Douglas R.
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. Dec 2018 52(4):285-296.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Social Networks, Creativity, Role, Individual Differences, Theories, Interpersonal Relationship, Correlation
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.153
ISSN: 0022-0175
Abstract: This article addresses the theoretical limitations of social network theory as it applies to individual creativity. Social network theory implicitly assumes that social interactions influence creativity identically for all individuals in all circumstances. We argue that the extent to which individuals take advantage of their social ties may vary depending on individual characteristics, based on the componential model and the investment theory of creativity. Building on an interactional approach, this article explores the role of individual differences in the relationship between social networks and individual creativity and proposes that weak ties enhance creativity when information recipients are highly open to experience, have more domain knowledge, have an innovative style, and are intrinsically motivated. This article contributes to the current debate on the relationship between social networks and individual creativity by rationalizing the conditions under which weak ties enhance individual creativity. Implications for business managers and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1199206
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEZgcmYZAwDqPFkmje56GvaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKovOytwOiz2N1Lz_wIBEICBm5z3zMyy3Qq4f0dwcdssLhDSNsR3mXgXIPpAK1Ig0TjFPuLJD3PILBjfdHxhrxNuSCEpF_9UZ-7t68orwI5MCbxuBzFApVBuZSC7P07MVV6Oecao8N5PJdTZ6TgGRwNAfunZlKA30vNrLrgW7hrMWMXSYYMQpzidfoevHeJvsMX0IGARZo2nxPjAZKQYt43hwwO1lvgaQy9UApUv
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0133441258;3u701dec.18;2018Dec10.05:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0133441258-1">Social Networks and Individual Creativity: The Role of Individual Differences </title> <p>This article addresses the theoretical limitations of social network theory as it applies to individual creativity. Social network theory implicitly assumes that social interactions influence creativity identically for all individuals in all circumstances. We argue that the extent to which individuals take advantage of their social ties may vary depending on individual characteristics, based on the componential model and the investment theory of creativity. Building on an interactional approach, this article explores the role of individual differences in the relationship between social networks and individual creativity and proposes that weak ties enhance creativity when information recipients are highly open to experience, have more domain knowledge, have an innovative style, and are intrinsically motivated. This article contributes to the current debate on the relationship between social networks and individual creativity by rationalizing the conditions under which weak ties enhance individual creativity. Implications for business managers and suggestions for future research are also discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: creativity; social networks; weak ties; individual differences</p> <p>Creativity is a focal topic in organizational studies because it creates value for organizations and provides useful ideas about product development, service procedures, and internal practices (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref3">84</reflink>]). Creativity can also provide solutions to current problems (Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref4">60</reflink>]) and insights into future problems in rapidly changing environments. Given the many benefits of creativity, scholars have endeavored to explain ways in which the creativity displayed in organizations can be enhanced (e.g., Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]; Khazanchi & Masterson, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref7">41</reflink>]; Oldham & Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref9">60</reflink>]; Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref10">72</reflink>]; Taggar, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref11">76</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref12">84</reflink>]; Zhou & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref13">87</reflink>]). Defined as an individual's ability to produce or respond in a way that is novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable to the task at hand (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]), in the work environment, creativity often depends on social interactions and relationships (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref17">60</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref18">84</reflink>]).</p> <p>The importance of social ties to creative behaviors has led scholars to examine the role of social networks in the work environment (e.g., Brass, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref21">61</reflink>]). It has been generally acknowledged that from the social network perspective, people in organizations are interdependent and that as a result, social interactions may affect their level of creativity (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]). Specifically, access to non‐redundant resources from social circles comprised heterogeneous people can facilitate individual creativity, whereas redundant resources based on strong social ties with homogeneous people may be neutral and even negative in terms of their influence on creativity (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]; Fleming et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Less is understood, however, on whether individual differences facilitate or constrain how tie strength relates to creativity. In the current studies of individual differences, social networks, and creativity, the underlying premise is that social interactions influence creativity the same way in all individuals. This is a critical research limitation since even when the opportunities for creativity provided are structured and uniform, the benefits realized may depend on unique personal characteristics. Although such characteristics are used to explain the nature of network configurations (e.g., Obstfeld, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>]) and predicting creativity (for review, see Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]), scholars have neglected the ways that other characteristics may moderate the relationship between social interactions and creativity (George, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref30">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, social interactions are not unidirectional, but often involve feedback and discussion as the focal actor reacts to social relations. As a result, the size or strength of a social network may not be the best predictor of creativity as such characteristics may ignore the complexity of the creative process (Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]). Even when opportunities for new social interactions are present, the extent to which individuals utilize their social ties may vary in terms of people's knowledge, personality, motivation, and the role they fill in their social networks, such as information receiver versus information provider. In terms of an actor's role in the network, scholars argue that the effects of social ties depend on an information provider's willingness and motivation (Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]; Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]; Oh & Kilduff, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>]). While the provider perspective considers the quality of information, it does not account for the ways in which individuals utilize available information from their social networks to generate creative ideas. That is because providers are not likely to combine new knowledge with creative solutions. Nor can it predict who might benefit the most from social activities.</p> <p>However, information receivers tend to use a broad cache of information indiscriminately in generating creative ideas. The recipient perspective of the relationship between tie strength and creativity implicitly supports the belief that actors do not prefer certain information, but rather, all information obtained from social contacts is a potential source of creative ideas for all actors. Thus, the more social activities engaged in by an individual, the more he or she receives usable information. This understanding is the basis for the recipient perspective, which theoretically underlies our conceptualization of creativity.</p> <p>Chatman ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]) emphasized the importance of an interactional approach to predict organizational behavior, which suggests that personal and contextual factors jointly influence creativity (George & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]; Oldham & Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref37">56</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref38">84</reflink>]). Although we know much about the ways in which social relationships influence creativity, few recent attempts have been made to examine the ways that personal characteristics interact with social ties to enhance creativity (e.g., Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]; Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>]; Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref42">69</reflink>]; Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref43">88</reflink>]). These studies' contributions to the body of social network research is noteworthy, but their results have been somewhat fragmented, focusing only on a certain factor within the social context.</p> <p>In this article, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and definitive view of creativity by describing potential interactive effects on individual creativity. To fill the theoretical gaps in theory on social network and creativity, this article endeavors to address the nature of relationship that exists between individual differences, tie strength, and creativity by exploring the characteristics of those individuals who receive the most benefit from weak ties, according to the information recipient perspective. We focus primarily on weak ties within the individual network, as these ties are relatively flexible, dynamic, and varied and can be developed more easily and quickly, while strong ties are comparatively static, as they cannot be quickly increased by people, given limited time and other resources (e.g., Louch, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]). The componential model (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>]) and investment theory in the creativity literature (Sternberg & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref47">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref48">74</reflink>]) suggest that the extent to which individuals benefit from their social ties may vary depending on their individual characteristics. Four factors, in particular—personality, knowledge, cognitive abilities, and motivation—have received substantial attention as keys to creativity (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]; Barron & Harrington, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref51">84</reflink>]). Integrating past research, which has underscored the importance of individual attributes and tie strength, this article suggests conceptual propositions that describe the ways in which individual characteristics and weak ties jointly influence creative behavior.</p> <p>By delving into the interactions between individual characteristics and the social network, we contribute to creativity literature by arguing that certain individual characteristics are more or less likely to facilitate or constrain the relationship between social ties and creativity. This extends previous studies which adopted the interaction approach (e.g., Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]), arguing that the potential benefits of tie strength may be realized by individuals who possess particular characteristics. We contribute to the social networks literature by discussing conditions under which the benefits of social networks may be influenced by certain characteristics of those who fulfill positions from an agentic perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-2">Individual Creativity from the Social Network Perspective</hd> <p>Social interactions have gained prominence in studies of organizational behavior and innovation (e.g., Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]; Hemphälä & Magnusson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>]). The social network theory assumes that actors and their actions are interdependent, meaning that actors transfer information through their relationship ties; that a social network environment offers opportunities and constraints on individual behavior; and that lasting patterns of relationships among actors may form the basis for conceptualized social network models (Wasserman & Faust, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>], p. 4). Following these assumptions, such social contexts as structural holes (Bizzi, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]; Burt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]; Burt, Jannotta, & Mahoney, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>]), network centrality (Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref59">64</reflink>]), social ties (e.g., Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>]; Fleming et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]; Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref62">35</reflink>]; Levin & Cross, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref63">46</reflink>]), and social networks (Obstfeld, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref64">54</reflink>]; Oh & Kilduff, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>]; Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref66">72</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref67">88</reflink>]) have been thoroughly examined to determine any direct or indirect influences of these contextual factors on individual innovative behavior.</p> <p>In the extensive body of research on social networks, there has been an attempt to capture the role of social network strength in enhancing individual creativity (e.g., Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref70">61</reflink>]; Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref71">72</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref72">88</reflink>]). Social network strength accounts for the frequency, reciprocity, emotional intensity, and intimacy of social relationships (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref73">34</reflink>]). Previous studies (e.g., Burt, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref74">18</reflink>]; Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref76">58</reflink>]) have consistently discriminated among the conceptually distinct characteristics of weak and strong ties, based on four components—emotional intensity, intimacy, the length of time, and the amount of reciprocal services. Thus, weak ties are more common in relationships characterized by infrequent interactions, few similar perspectives, and one‐way exchanges (Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref77">60</reflink>]). One example of weak ties is the network of formal relationships among people attending an annual meeting. Here, weak ties would refer to the focal individual's interactive relationships with those outside his or her work group or organization, characterized by low levels of redundancy, frequency, and conformity (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>]). This means that employees with weak ties beyond their organizational boundaries will tend to generate more creative ideas and that weak ties act as conduits for diverse information (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]), whereas strong ties represent relationships between parties with similar perspectives who meet regularly and frequently and enjoy or care about one another (Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref80">60</reflink>]). An example of a strong tie would be a close relationship between friends and teammates.</p> <p>Each kind of tie has distinct benefits. Weak ties allow actors access to novel, non‐redundant information, whereas strong ties can mean gaining fine‐grained information, building trust between actors, and the efficient transfer of tacit knowledge (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref81">35</reflink>]). Building on Granovetter's theory of weak ties, current studies on organizational behavior offer a rationale for the effects of social relationships on individual creativity (Brass, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref83">58</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref84">60</reflink>]; Shalley & Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref85">67</reflink>]; Simonton, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref86">71</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref87">88</reflink>]), that is, weak ties are more beneficial to creativity than strong ties. One reason given is that weak ties have a more positive effect because they provide access to novel, non‐redundant information, given that diverse social circles are sources of creative ideas or innovation and these may facilitate a range of creative problem‐solving (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>]; Simonton, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref89">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because weak ties offer more information gleaned from a wide variety of social interactions, more creative combinations are generated for use in ideas (Mumford & Gustafson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref90">53</reflink>]). Thus, potential knowledge integration or cooperation may be more fruitful when there is less commonality of specialized knowledge among actors (cf., Grant, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref91">37</reflink>]). Previous empirical work supports this argument, finding that weak ties facilitate creativity (Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref93">59</reflink>]; Reinholt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref94">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, weak ties benefit individual creativity because they provide access to connections with a variety of perspectives and non‐redundant resources such as information or knowledge across departments and organizations, which in turn may establish social relationships and resources that facilitate creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-3">Individual Differences and Weak Ties</hd> <p>We propose a conceptual model that elucidates ways in which personal factors and social networks may jointly influence individual creativity from the information recipient perspective. Among a host of individual differences, four categories have received attention in the creativity literature: personality, knowledge, cognitive abilities, and motivation (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>]; Barron & Harrington, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref96">12</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref97">84</reflink>]). These are grounded in theories of individual creativity including the componential (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>]) and investment theories (Sternberg & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref100">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref101">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref102">75</reflink>]). The componential theory of creativity contends that individual characteristics, such as task motivation, domain knowledge and abilities, and creativity‐relevant skills, interact with social factors to influence individual creativity. Sternberg and Lubart's ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref103">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref104">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref105">75</reflink>]) investment theory of creativity proposes that in addition to motivation, knowledge, intellectual abilities, and thinking styles, personality is the key to creativity, and such factors work with the environment to influence individual creativity. Based on a thorough review of the literature on individual characteristics for creativity, Woodman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref106">84</reflink>]) cited the four categories of individual differences as important factors in individual creativity. Each of the categories of individual difference—openness to experience, domain knowledge, cognitive style, and intrinsic motivation—has received attention as individual attributes that enhances creativity (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref107">68</reflink>]). Among personality traits, for example, studies have found that openness to experience is important for generating creativity (Feist, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref108">30</reflink>]; Sternberg & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref109">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref110">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref111">75</reflink>]; Xu, Jiang, & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref112">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>The four individual differences have also been associated with creativity through interaction with the contextual environment. Thus, the interactionist perspective (Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref113">84</reflink>]) suggests that we consider the moderating roles of individual differences when interpreting contextual influence on employee creativity. Depending on such individual differences, the same context may have a different impact across employees. Rather than exploring the influence of untested individual characteristics on creativity, we chose to study four characteristics known to matter to creativity to propose a general but comprehensive research direction for studying social ties and creativity, namely individual differences that function as moderators in relationships between weak ties and creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-4">Openness to Experience</hd> <p>Scholars have argued that individuals often interpret the same situation differently and, as a result, will differ in their potential for creativity (Barron & Harrington, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref114">12</reflink>]). In the Five Factors Model, openness to experience, which refers to an individual's willingness to explore, tolerate, and consider new or unfamiliar ideas and experiences (McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref115">51</reflink>]), has been found particularly relevant to individual creativity (Feist, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>]; Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref117">85</reflink>]). Individuals with a high degree of openness to new experience are not only willing to engage in such experiences and perspectives; they tend to be open‐minded, curious, and flexible (McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref118">51</reflink>]; Scratchley & Hakstian, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref119">66</reflink>]). In contrast, those with less openness to experience tend to be conventional and have strong preferences for familiarity, routine security, and simplicity (McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref120">51</reflink>]; Shalley et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref121">68</reflink>]), and they are more inclined to the pursuit of prevention and maintenance‐related goals (Vaughn, Baumann, & Klemann, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref122">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>One central unanswered question about openness to experience concerns how it may directly or indirectly influence creativity. Although a direct effect has been suggested (Feist, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref123">30</reflink>]), empirical tests have failed to find support for this notion (George & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref124">33</reflink>]), implying that the interactional (indirect) approach may be more appropriate (Burke & Witt, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref125">17</reflink>]). Conversely, the interactional approach has been applied both empirically and theoretically. For example, George and Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref126">33</reflink>]) found that interactions among factors that include openness to experience, feedback valence, and the nature of work tasks may influence creativity. Zhou and Shalley ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref127">87</reflink>]) suggest that individuals with a high degree of openness to experience may generate creative performances when the organizational context (i.e., social relationships) allows for and encourages expressions of the individual creativity.</p> <p>These studies imply that the relationship between openness to experience and creativity is not simply positive or negative but is more complex than originally thought (Shalley et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref128">68</reflink>]). Relying on the interactional approach, we propose that weak social ties may enhance creativity, especially in individuals with a high degree of openness to experience, which may facilitate the processes necessary for creativity. Weak ties would function positively when combined with curiosity, flexibility, openness to new perspectives, and a desire for new situations. These characteristics may increase the chance that individuals with weak ties consider a wide variety of perspectives and would be open to unfamiliar ideas and information needed to explore new or alternative solutions to problems (Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref129">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>The composition of weak ties also enhances actors' creativity, particularly when they are open to new experiences. Compared with strong ties, the information obtained from weak ties may be simple and less important, given the lower degree of trust and fewer (or weaker) norms of reciprocity (Reinholt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref130">64</reflink>]), as well as the relatively short duration of ties, bound by infrequent social relationship transfer of codified knowledge (Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref131">38</reflink>]). Despite such contrary characteristics, information transmitted through weak ties would be unavailable within homogeneous social circles, which augments the depth and width of an actor's information stock (Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref132">72</reflink>]), but also less biased. Thus, diverse information as a source of creativity may enhance the generation of ideas among open individuals, with the added benefit of less time and effort expended.</p> <p>According to Feist ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref133">30</reflink>]), openness to experience is an integrative quality, and such individuals are both willing and capable of integrating new information into what they already know. These individuals would be more likely to utilize the information benefits of integrating and synthesizing, increasing their creativity (Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref134">8</reflink>]). In contrast, individuals with less openness to experience may not reap the benefits of weak ties, given their more passive nature as recipients of new experiences (Baer & Oldham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref135">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, we posit the following:</p> <p>Proposition 1: Openness to experience may moderate the effects of social tie strength on creativity such that the number of weak ties is more positively related to individual creativity when an individual possesses a high degree of openness to experience.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-5">Domain Knowledge</hd> <p>The beneficial effects of weak ties on creativity may be bolstered when a focal individual has extensive domain knowledge, as creative ideas are often derived from a combination of accumulated and newly gained knowledge. Domain‐relevant knowledge is sometimes defined as an individual's knowledge of facts, circumstances, and issues surrounding a given problem or area (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref136">3</reflink>]). Previous studies (e.g., Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref137">2</reflink>]) have identified domain knowledge as the antecedent to creativity, and that it comprises education and perceptual ability. It has been suggested that domain knowledge contributes to an increased ability to identify and validate potential solutions, resulting in greater creative performance (Mumford & Gustafson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref138">53</reflink>]; Simonton, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref139">71</reflink>]). However, other studies have shown that previous domain knowledge may be related to less information gathering (e.g., Lee, Herr, Kardes, & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref140">45</reflink>]) and that weak ties may discourage knowledge searching behaviors (Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref141">38</reflink>]), resulting in less creative behavior. This suggests that it is not domain knowledge per se that influences creativity, but rather the interaction between domain knowledge and social capital that determines the extent of individual creativity.</p> <p>Social network theory suggests that the benefits derived from weak ties may differ according to the nature of the information. First, infrequent social interactions outside a limited social circle of individuals with different perspectives may offer new and unique information (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref142">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref143">19</reflink>]), spurring creative insights. Second, individuals in a heterogeneous social network may exchange a wide range of knowledge and information (Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref144">60</reflink>]). Third, weak ties allow actors to access information not available from strong ties, as they provide search benefits, autonomy, and diverse information (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref145">34</reflink>]; Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref146">38</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref147">60</reflink>]). Fourth, as an individual's social network expands beyond its domain field, the overall pool of knowledge an actor can deploy increases. And finally, variations within the network, such as demographic differences, tenure levels, functional disciplines, geographic locations, organizations, and even business units, may contribute to the diversity and type of knowledge exchanged (Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref148">27</reflink>]; Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref149">38</reflink>]; Reagans & McEvily, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref150">63</reflink>]), essential to generating ideas.</p> <p>Synthesizing new knowledge obtained from diverse resources that bases creative solutions on existing domain knowledge requires a sufficient understanding of that domain. Still, mere participation in social activities does not necessarily improve creativity, since without previous experience or knowledge of a domain, it may be challenging to find useful ways to combine existing and new information, due to the "stickiness" of information (Von Hippel, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref151">80</reflink>]). In sum, proponents of the weak tie perspective assert that non‐redundant and heterogeneous ties increase the range of skills, knowledge, and perspectives available to an individual, making idea generation and implementation more complex (e.g., Kijkuit & Van Den Ende, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref152">42</reflink>]; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref153">57</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref154">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, an individual's ability to generate novel solutions depends on her or his understanding and interpretation of such information and the knowledge available throughout the network (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref155">49</reflink>]). Domain knowledge in particular is crucial to extracting the most meaningful solutions from numerous possibilities. Those professionals with prolific domain knowledge are capable of integrating the knowledge obtained from their weaker ties because they understand the value and importance of new information and how to utilize it in generating ideas. Exposed as they are to more ties, they are better at recognizing and validating the potential of knowledge aimed at creative solutions. Thus, an academic conference whose attendees have many opportunities to build social relationships could be the source of new information. When attendees recognize how to combine new information and perspectives in an innovative way with existing knowledge, they are more likely to launch research projects. In other words, weak ties are beneficial to individuals who have the domain knowledge to understand and adapt non‐redundant knowledge. This logic suggests the following proposition:</p> <p>Proposition 2: Domain knowledge moderates the effect of social ties on creativity such that the number of weak ties is more positively related to individual creativity when an individual has more domain knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-6">Cognitive Style</hd> <p>Another important difference in the relationship of weak ties to creativity is cognitive style, which refers to an individual's preferred ways of gathering, structuring, and applying information (Kirton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref156">43</reflink>]; Tennant, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref157">77</reflink>]). According to Kirton's ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref158">43</reflink>]) adaptation innovation theory, problem‐solving cognitive style lies on the continuum between innovative and adaptive styles. An individual with an adaptive style (an "adaptor") prefers to use accurate information, facts, figures, and conventional theories and procedures and focuses on the ability to do things well (Kirton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref159">43</reflink>]). In contrast, individuals with innovative style ("innovators") use personal information and divergent thinking and value the ability to do things differently and provide unusual solutions to typical problems (De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref160">29</reflink>]; Kirton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref161">43</reflink>]). Adapters tend to be risk averse and function under given conditions, whereas innovators are inclined to take risks and rely on validity to develop solutions based on diverse perspectives (Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref162">10</reflink>]; Shalley et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref163">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Creativity literature (e.g., Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref164">6</reflink>]; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref165">78</reflink>]) has consistently cited cognitive style as an important individual characteristic, suggesting that individual cognition may account for an ability to exploit opportunities available in one's social networks. This stream of research assumes that adaptors and innovators have different orientations toward social relationships and in the extent to which they seek risk, excitement, and enjoyment from them (Baer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref166">10</reflink>]). Individuals with an innovative style are likely to pursue complex, challenging activities that stretch their abilities and provide new experiences (Amabile et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref167">5</reflink>]; Kirton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref168">43</reflink>]), while Isaksen ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref169">40</reflink>]) has argued that the intuitive processing with which innovators generate novel solutions generally involve information across domains.</p> <p>Combining weak ties and cognitive style, we suggest that the benefits of weak ties are more likely realized by individuals with innovative cognitive styles, that is, an exposure to heterogeneous social circles in combination with an innovative cognitive style may lead to the pursuit of alternative or unusual solutions to problems (Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref170">58</reflink>]). Thus, a marketing manager who has many heterogeneous social circles (weak ties) would be more likely to produce creative marketing strategies given an innovative cognitive style. By integrating the opinions of individuals in other departments with those outside of the organization, this manager could modify a marketing strategy to better meet customers' needs and increase the organization's market share. For adaptors, who prefer work routines and predictable situations, weak ties would not be as likely to lead to creativity since they increase uncertainty and complexity in the work environment. When adaptors encounter weak ties, systematic problem‐solving processes which generate conventional solutions (Scott & Bruce, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref171">65</reflink>]) are interrupted.</p> <p>Therefore, we propose the following:</p> <p>Proposition 3: An individual's cognitive style moderates the effect of social ties on creativity such that the number of weak ties is more positively related to individual creativity when an individual has a more innovative style as opposed to an adaptive style.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-7">Intrinsic Motivation</hd> <p>Task motivation is considered a central characteristic associated with creativity (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref172">2</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref173">84</reflink>]; Zhang & Bartol, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref174">86</reflink>]). In particular, those individuals who are intrinsically motivated would be expected to have higher levels of curiosity, cognitive flexibility, risk taking, and persistence (Zhou & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref175">87</reflink>]). Such individuals tend to maintain a sense of purpose in the face of difficulties or discouragement (McGraw & Fiala, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref176">52</reflink>]) and to generate new or alternative solutions using non‐traditional approaches (Shin & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref177">70</reflink>]). Amabile et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref178">5</reflink>]) suggested that given challenging and enjoyable assignments, intrinsically motivated individuals may develop new skills, exercise more creativity, and become deeply involved in their work.</p> <p>Although relatively lower levels of trust and fewer or weaker norms of reciprocity in weak ties may disrupt sharing valuable or complex knowledge (Chua, Morris, & Ingram, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref179">24</reflink>]), weak ties are positively related to the autonomy of actors and the diversity and amount of information that is shared. Exposure to large amounts of diverse information via weak social ties may not benefit such actors, unless they have adequate motivation and the ability to fully exploit opportunities. Compared with individuals who are not intrinsically motivated, these people are more likely to exploit the benefits of information that stretch their abilities and self‐development (Reinholt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref180">64</reflink>]), even when information transferred through weak ties seems simplistic or unimportant.</p> <p>Engaging in heterogeneous social circles can also spark opportunities, leading them to proactively utilize their social networks and creatively explore novel pathways. Therefore, intrinsically motivated individuals perceive social activities and access to heterogeneous knowledge and information as opportunities, whereas those with less intrinsic motivation may interpret them as additional pressure. For the latter, the diversity and amount of information do not serve as seeds from which divergent and flexible thinking grow. In this case, they would not benefit as much from weak ties. Thus, we propose the following:</p> <p>Proposition 4: Intrinsic motivation moderates the effect of social ties on creativity such that the number of weak ties is more positively related to individual creativity when an individual has a high degree of intrinsic motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-8">Discussion and Implication</hd> <p>Social network theory has been applied to the individual creativity literature to provide new theoretical insights into individual creativity (e.g., Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref181">3</reflink>]; Brass, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref182">15</reflink>]; Khazanchi & Masterson, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref183">41</reflink>]; Kijkuit & Van Den Ende, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref184">42</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref185">58</reflink>]; Perry‐Smith & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref186">61</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref187">88</reflink>]). The dominant logic is that social relationships with heterogeneous groups may benefit creativity due to the amount of diverse information they bring. Although this notion is supported and accepted by many scholars, studies that used an interactional approach have emphasized and examined the joint effects of individual characteristics with contextual factors on creativity. Integrating social networks and creativity theory, this article extends the research by proposing that the extent to which weak ties facilitate creativity may vary depending on an individual's characteristics. Relying on componential and investment theory models, this article concentrates on four individual characteristics to illustrate that weak ties may further enhance individual creativity when an individual: has a high degree of openness to different experience; retains significant domain knowledge; has an innovative style; and is intrinsically motivated.</p> <p>Overall, we suggest that although individual characteristics and social structure may predict individual creativity, the interactions between these four characteristics and social contexts are critical to better understanding the range of individual creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-9">Theoretical Implications</hd> <p>This conceptual paper complements previous studies by taking a more inclusive view, resulting in new and more systematic understanding of the effects of individual and contextual contingencies. To the best of our knowledge, such conceptualization is among only a few studies that have discussed the interaction of social ties and individual differences. Previous studies examining joint effects on creativity have been limited or fragmentary, explored only one characteristic such as entrepreneurial personality (Burt et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref188">21</reflink>]) or openness to experience (Baer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref189">8</reflink>]), or a single social context, such as a virtual network (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref190">20</reflink>]; Constant et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref191">25</reflink>]). In order to extend the literature, this article presents a more comprehensive and nuanced view of the benefit of weak ties to individual creativity by addressing a group of individual characteristics from the perspective of an information recipient: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref192">1</reflink>) openness to experience, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref193">2</reflink>) domain knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref194">3</reflink>) cognitive style, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref195">4</reflink>) intrinsic motivation (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref196">3</reflink>]). This approach may help us understand who benefits the most from an increased number of weak ties.</p> <p>Current theory contributes to social network theory by clarifying its limitations. The assumption that social interactions may influence everyone identically may not be a valid claim, as variation exists among individuals in terms of attitudes and traits. Furthermore, the roles played by interacting actors must be clearly defined, as information providers and recipients are rarely positioned equally or uniformly motivated. This implies that the benefit of a social network may vary, depending on the functions that actors fulfill within their networks.</p> <p>Given that the focus of this article is creativity, the recipient perspective seems most appropriate, supporting the underlying notion that the more weak ties an individual engages in, the more unbiased information they will receive, generating more creative ideas. By focusing on information recipients, we suggest a relationship that emphasizes the importance of individual recipient characteristics as well as social interactions within and across teams, departments, and organizations, allowing us to better account for any observed variation in individual creativity.</p> <p>Thus, we extend the creativity literature by integrating social network theory and creativity theory, providing theoretical support for the interactional approach to understanding the influence of individual and contextual factors on creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-10">Practical Implications</hd> <p>One of the practical implications of this article is that if managers support or facilitate employees' social interactions outside of their group or organization, they may enhance their creativity and ultimately improve the innovative performance of their organizations. Along these lines, managers should consider the nature of a project or task when assigning work if they wish to enhance creativity. For example, IDEO, a global design and innovation consulting firm, successfully used individual differences to improve its capacity for innovation. By bringing together individuals with diverse experiences and knowledge, the firm can rapidly launch projects requiring increased levels of creativity. The IDEO approach has been featured in several popular media outlets, emphasizing a "human‐centered" innovative style. While working on projects, IDEO teams embody a range of disparate backgrounds, fostering a culture of greater openness.</p> <p>While the IDEO approach may not be suitable for all organizations, there are other ways in which to implement this structure. When employees are connected to people from different backgrounds outside their work group or organization, a manager may assign them tasks designed to generate novel ideas and solutions and encourage these employees to cultivate weak ties in the generation process. Furthermore, if creativity is a central performance factor, managers may design tasks and jobs in a way that provide easy access to novel, non‐redundant, or unusual information. For instance, managers may give employees cross‐border or cross‐functional assignments and encourage them to participate in social meetings and events outside of the organization. Such an approach would afford the opportunity to form weak ties that could be augmented when the employees must generate creativity.</p> <p>Ultimately, managers should consider employees' individual characteristics as well as social networking opportunities when encouraging them to engage in creative thinking. Simply supporting social interactions may be less effective than a targeted two‐pronged approach, since some differences constrain the beneficial effect of social activity on creativity. To improve employee creativity in an organization, managers must account for individual characteristics in their hiring and staffing. That is, by administering aptitude and personality tests to potential employees, companies may better match positions to certain individuals. Employees who possess more creative characteristics would be likely able to use structural and situational opportunities to generate creative solutions and be of most benefit to companies that demand those skills.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-11">Empirically Testing Propositions and Future Research</hd> <p>To empirically test our propositions, we suggest the use of survey‐based network studies across multiple organizations. Individual social network ties may need to be assessed by the ego network approach (number of direct contacts). To eliminate interference, we suggest that researchers control for the potential effects of strong ties by examining the propositions put forward in this article. The distinct dimensions of tie strength could be used to determine its overall extent. For example, the frequency dimension could be used such that the number of ties with whom the focal individual frequently interacts indicates the extent of strong ties, while the number of ties with whom he or she infrequently interacts represents the extent of weak ties. Obtaining survey data from multiple sources at multiple points in time would be helpful in understanding more about the evolution of tie strength. To minimize the possibility of common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref197">62</reflink>]), we suggest that researchers assess network configuration and individual characteristics from focal individuals to obtain data on individual creativity performance based on supervisors' ratings and organizations' archival data, which would produce more reliable and valid empirical findings. We also suggest that researchers seek data from the multinational corporations in which employees build network ties both within and outside of their home country. This would enable researchers to study the variance in employees' tie strength.</p> <p>There are many other ways the proposed framework might fuel future research that contributes to the literature. Although our primary research interest in with characteristics that offer the most individual benefits from weak ties, we cannot ignore the possible benefit of strong ties to creativity or fail to argue that individuals who have strong ties are in more favorable positions than those with weak ties. This is because strong ties allow people to receive and transfer in‐depth knowledge frequently and effectively, due to the mutual trust and frequent interaction they cause (Kijkuit & Van Den Ende, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref198">42</reflink>]; Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref199">72</reflink>]). Hence, those with strong ties may have more opportunities to receive detailed and thorough information and knowledge that will increase the generation of creative output. Similar empirical findings have found that strong ties enhance creativity when the task involves transferring complex knowledge and selecting alternatives (cf. Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref200">38</reflink>]; Kijkuit & Van Den Ende, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref201">42</reflink>]; Sosa, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref202">72</reflink>]). Therefore, it may be valuable to research the impact of weak ties vs. strong ties on creativity, along with individual attributes within that relationship.</p> <p>Another promising research topic might be the investigation of individual dynamics from a multilevel perspective. According to Woodman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref203">84</reflink>]), a group's creativity is not simply the aggregate of all members' creativity, but rather organizational creativity is a function of group creativity and contextual influences. Thus, it may be fruitful to explore the ways in which social ties influence creativity at the organizational level (Taggar, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref204">76</reflink>]; West & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref205">83</reflink>]; Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref206">84</reflink>]). Investigating organizational factors associated with individual creativity could also be an interesting research topic. As Granovetter ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref207">34</reflink>]) stated, analyzing the processes of interpersonal networks could be the most fruitful way to link behaviors from micro to macro perspectives. For example, weak ties could improve creativity at the individual, team, and organizational levels, but such organizational factors as culture, structure, and strategic association may influence the extent to which social ties are associated with creativity. Thus, weak ties may facilitate individual creative activities when an organization features risk‐taking norms (West & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref208">82</reflink>]) and a specialized and decentralized structure (Damanpour, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref209">28</reflink>]). An organizational culture that supports experimentation (Damanpour, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref210">28</reflink>]) and social activities may also be required to enhance individual creativity within organizations.</p> <p>Third, it would be worth examining the role of contextual factors in the external work environments to predict creativity at work. A basic tenet of creativity theory is that creativity increases when the work environment enables employees to realize their creative potential (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref211">4</reflink>]). However, individual attitudes and behaviors are not unaffected by social influences and norms (Klein & Kozlowski, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref212">44</reflink>]). Building on this notion, it would be valuable to investigate an environment where individuals with weak ties are more likely to benefit from social contacts in fostering creativity. For example, weak ties might be strongly linked to creativity when an individual is responsible for generating rather than acting on ideas or working in a climate that fosters idea‐sharing among employees. An individual's occupation may also influence the extent to which individual differences moderate the relationship between weak ties and creativity, i.e., occupations that involve a variety of information received in a timely manner (engineering) may differ in the extent to which the moderating effects on creativity of individual characteristic decrease, and the direct effects of weak ties increase, compared with occupations that create products based on personal inspiration (e.g., fine arts). Future research is warranted.</p> <p>Fourth, discrepant theoretical arguments in the creativity and network literature may be attributed to an insufficient understanding of the causal relationships among individual differences, social ties, and creativity. Although we suggest a contingent role for individual differences within the relationship between social ties and creativity, others have suggested a different causal direction. Costa and McCrae ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref213">26</reflink>]) and Barrick and Mount ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref214">11</reflink>]) believe that openness to experience leads to a broader social network, which would explain the proliferation of creative and innovative performances among those open to new experiences. Perry‐Smith and Shalley ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref215">60</reflink>]) have suggested that weak ties within a highly related domain are associated with an enhanced knowledge base. That is, social relationships increase individual understanding and facilitate problem‐solving based on a range of perspectives (Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref216">58</reflink>]). These arguments suggest a mediating role played by individual differences within the relationship between social tie strength and creativity.</p> <p>Other scholars assume a causal path lies between individual characteristics and social ties or creativity (e.g., Cho, Chung, Choi, Suh, & Seo, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref217">23</reflink>]; Liang, Chang, & Hsu, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref218">47</reflink>]; Shalley & Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref219">67</reflink>]). Thus, future research into alternative causal relationships using well‐designed panel data instead of cross‐sectional data may be called for.</p> <p>Researchers might also build on our conceptualization by investigating the ways in which the four moderating individual variables we suggest interact with one another to predict creativity. Although all four moderators are hypothesized to positively influence the relationship between weak ties and creativity, relationships among or between them may influence creativity to different extents. While domain knowledge and innovative style stem from individual cognitive reservoirs, openness and intrinsic motivation are associated with external resources. In other words, the benefits of openness and intrinsic motivation hinge on whether novel ideas and perspectives are available and whether a focal individual's tasks are of intrinsic interest to him or her. Thus, we speculate that, for example, domain knowledge and innovative styles may interact with openness and intrinsic motivation in a complementary manner, whereas domain knowledge and openness may interact in an additive manner to predict creativity differently than or innovative style and intrinsic motivation. These are interesting and potentially fruitful areas for future research.</p> <p>Finally, scholars may wish to examine the structural aspects of social ties, such as structural holes, centrality, and density (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref220">16</reflink>]), and how they interact with individual differences to influence creativity. Perry‐Smith ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref221">58</reflink>]) has pointed out that centrally placed individuals should be open‐minded when considering alternative approaches. Based on our proposition, those individuals with a low degree of openness to experience are likely to exhibit less creativity. Dense social relationships may enhance the social consensus in the decision‐making process (Brass et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref222">16</reflink>]), inhibiting individual creativity (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref223">88</reflink>]), while in a loosely connected network, individuals with creative personalities may exhibit higher levels of creativity. Thus, we assert that intrinsic motivation, openness to experience, domain knowledge, and innovative cognitive style significantly moderate the structural dimensions of social relationships and creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0133441258-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>From an agentic and inclusive view, the theorizing discussed in this article illuminates new ways of thinking about how individuals are embedded in their social structures and the impact on creativity, by amplifying the benefit of weak ties derived from personal characteristics of recipients of information and their creativity. We encourage future researchers to extend this theorization by studying a greater range of individual and contextual factors and their effect on the relationship between social tie strength and creativity across organizations, countries, and cultures.</p> <ref id="AN0133441258-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123 – 167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref195" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154 – 1184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950 – 967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, M.H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: A study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 51 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state‐of‐the‐science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297 – 1333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baer, M. (2010). The strength‐of‐weak‐ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 592.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref135" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Baer, M., & Oldham, G.R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baer, M., Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569 – 586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barron, F., & Harrington, D.M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 32, 439 – 476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bizzi, L. (2013). Networks and bias in the performance appraisal of human resources: A multilevel theory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Orlando, FL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518 – 539.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brass, D.J. (1995). Creativity: It's all in your social network. In C.M. Ford & D.A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 94 – 99). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K.D., & Skaggs, B.C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, L.A., & Witt, L.A. (2002). Moderators of the openness to experience‐performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 712.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349 – 399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R.S. (2012). Network‐related personality and the agency question: Multirole evidence from a virtual world1. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 543 – 591.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R.S., Jannotta, J.E., & Mahoney, J.T. (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes. Social networks, 20, 63 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person‐organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333 – 349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, Y., Chung, H.Y., Choi, K., Suh, Y., & Seo, C. (2011). The creativity of Korean leaders and its implications for creativity dducation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 235 – 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chua, R.Y., Morris, M.W., & Ingram, P. (2010). Embeddedness and new idea discussion in professional networks: The mediating role of affect‐based trust. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 85 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7, 119 – 135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six‐year longitudinal study of self‐reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853 – 863.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummings, J.N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 352 – 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta‐analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555 – 590.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Stobbeleir, K.E., Ashford, S.J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self‐regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback‐seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 811 – 831.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feist, G.J. (1998). A meta‐analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443 – 475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, J.M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439 – 477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513 – 524.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360 – 1380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481 – 510.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (S2), 109 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search‐transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M. (2012). Networks for innovation–But what networks and what innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 3 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Isaksen, S.G. (1987). Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. Buffalo, NY : Bearly.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S.S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi‐foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 86 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kijkuit, B., & Van Den Ende, J. (2007). The organizational life of an idea: Integrating social network, creativity and decision‐making perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 863 – 882.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirton, M.J. (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving (2nd edn). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H., Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., & Kim, C. (1999). Motivated search: Effects of choice accountability, issue involvement, and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use. Journal of Business Research, 45, 75 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, D.Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477 – 1490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang, C., Chang, C.C., & Hsu, Y. (2014). Differential effects of personality traits and environmental predictors on reproductive and creative imagination. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 237 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louch, H. (2000). Personal network integration: Transitivity and homophily in strong‐tie relations. Social Networks, 22, 45 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R., & Pratt, M.G. (2002). There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757 – 768.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509 – 516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGraw, K.O., & Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the Zeigarnik effect: Another hidden cost of reward. Journal of Personality, 50, 58 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100 – 130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oh, H., & Kilduff, M. (2008). The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self‐monitoring origins of network brokerage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1155 – 1164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry‐Smith, J.E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry‐Smith, J.E. (2014). Social network ties beyond nonredundancy: An experimental investigation of the effect of knowledge content and tie strength on creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 831 – 846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry‐Smith, J.E., & Shalley, C.E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry‐Smith, J.E., & Shalley, C.E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: The role of member nationality‐heterogeneous ties outside of the team. Organization Science, 25, 1434 – 1452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 – 903.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N.J. (2011). Why a central network position isn't enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1277 – 1297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scratchley, L.S., & Hakstian, A.R. (2001). The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 367 – 384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalley, C.E., & Perry‐Smith, J.E. (2008). The emergence of team creative cognition: The role of diverse outside ties, socio‐cognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 23 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933 – 958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, S.J., Kim, T.Y., Lee, J.Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross‐level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197 – 212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, S.J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703 – 714.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonton, D.K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sosa, M.E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22, 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York : Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tennant, M. (2006). Psychology and adult learning. New York : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., & Graen, G.B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591 – 620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, L.A., Baumann, J., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 886 – 894.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Von Hippel, E. (1994). "Sticky information" and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429 – 439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK, and New York : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, M.A., & Anderson, N. (1992). Innovation, cultural values, and the management of change in British hospitals. Work and Stress, 6, 293 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680 – 693.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, S., Jiang, X., & Walsh, I.J. (2016). The influence of openness to experience on perceived employee creativity: The moderating roles of individual trust. The Journal of Creative Behavior ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X., & Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107 – 128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, J., & Shalley, C.E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 165 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, J., Shin, S.J., Brass, D.J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z.X. (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1544 – 1552.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sang Kyun Kim; Shung Jae Shin; Jiseon Shin and Douglas R. Miller</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref220"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1199206
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Social Networks and Individual Creativity: The Role of Individual Differences
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kim%2C+Sang+Kyun%22">Kim, Sang Kyun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shin%2C+Shung+Jae%22">Shin, Shung Jae</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shin%2C+Jiseon%22">Shin, Jiseon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Miller%2C+Douglas+R%2E%22">Miller, Douglas R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. Dec 2018 52(4):285-296.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role%22">Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Differences%22">Individual Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theories%22">Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.153
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article addresses the theoretical limitations of social network theory as it applies to individual creativity. Social network theory implicitly assumes that social interactions influence creativity identically for all individuals in all circumstances. We argue that the extent to which individuals take advantage of their social ties may vary depending on individual characteristics, based on the componential model and the investment theory of creativity. Building on an interactional approach, this article explores the role of individual differences in the relationship between social networks and individual creativity and proposes that weak ties enhance creativity when information recipients are highly open to experience, have more domain knowledge, have an innovative style, and are intrinsically motivated. This article contributes to the current debate on the relationship between social networks and individual creativity by rationalizing the conditions under which weak ties enhance individual creativity. Implications for business managers and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1199206
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1199206
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.153
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 285
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Social Networks and Individual Creativity: The Role of Individual Differences
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kim, Sang Kyun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shin, Shung Jae
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shin, Jiseon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Miller, Douglas R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1