Employee creativity is a potential resource for organizational innovation, development, and survival (Anderson et al., 2014). The scope of creativity is vast and can involve small adaptations or breakthrough discoveries (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Compared to incremental creativity, which offers minor modifications to products or processes, radical creativity focuses on drastic changes in an organization’s existing practices (Madjar et al., 2011). In addition, radical creativity creates new business and revenue opportunities for an organization, acting as a critical driver boosting its competitive advantage (Jaussi & Randel, 2014). Therefore, identifying the essential components that stimulate employees’ radical creativity holds significant practical and theoretical value.

 

Several studies have explored the substantial effect of a variety of personal and contextual characteristics on radical creativity, such as intrinsic motivation and resources for creativity (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar et al., 2011). However, few researchers have examined why employees often develop more unique and breakthrough ideas when working alone (Wiekens & Stapel, 2008). One explanation may be that employees differ in how they view themselves in relation to others, and the expression of one’s self-construal influences whether they tend to think differently or similarly (Wiekens & Stapel, 2008). Employees with independent self-construal tend to use innovative thinking that may establish their uniqueness when dealing with work-related problems, making them more likely to generate radical ideas (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

 

A useful lens for investigating the relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity is uniqueness theory, which posits that the need to feel different varies among individuals, determines their subsequent actions (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977), and is influenced by environmental stimuli (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). As an inclusive work environment, an error-management climate may create favorable conditions for employees to seek uniqueness. A positive error-management climate encourages employees to learn from errors and try new things, which may enhance their sense of safety in exploring and reduce their pressure and worry about differentiation from others (Hofmann & Mark, 2006). In this context, employees with independent self-construal may have a stronger tendency to maintain uniqueness and increase their investment in radical creativity (George, 2007). To examine how independent self-construal links to radical creativity, we constructed a moderated meditation model, investigating the need for uniqueness as a potential key mechanism.

Independent self-construal refers to the extent to which an individual views the self as an autonomous, independent unity (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Employees with independent self-construal tend to maintain independence from others, pursue personal achievement (Oyserman & Lee, 2008), and work toward the realization of their own potential (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Since they focus on expressing internal abilities, thoughts, and feelings (Lalwani et al., 2006; Singelis, 1994), these individuals are less likely to consider the effect of their behaviors on others (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). They also have a desire to protect and enhance the characteristics that make them unique (Wiekens & Stapel, 2008), which fundamentally alters their attitudes and behaviors as well as the basic psychological processes of person and relationship perception, emotion, and motivation (Cojuharenco et al., 2012).

 

Characterized by extreme unfamiliarity and complexity, radical creativity represents a high degree of uniqueness in thinking and behavior (Mao et al., 2021). Since it involves ideas that differ substantially from existing practices within the organization (Madjar et al., 2011), radical creativity not only challenges the established organizational state but can also drastically destabilize the existing balance of power. Employees with individual self-construal value self-reliance (Lalwani et al., 2006); thus, they may engage in activities associated with radical creativity to cater to their desire to be different and stand out (Cross et al., 2011; Dollinger, 2003; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). In other words, radical creativity could be an important way for these employees to show their preferences and dispositions (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Independent self-construal will be positively related to radical creativity.

The need for uniqueness is defined as a counterconformity motivation to strive for abnormality relative to others (Tian et al., 2001). The expression of uniqueness is sought in different forms, such as displaying one’s possessions or demonstrating expertise in a certain field (Snyder, 1992; Tian et al., 2001). There is considerable evidence that the need for uniqueness is driven by long-term stability factors, such as personal differences. For example, individuals with narcissistic traits are often more motivated to seek uniqueness (Lee et al., 2013). Previous research has also found situational determinants of the need for uniqueness. For example, an environment with cool temperatures can increase individual preferences for minority approval, which stimulates motivation for uniqueness (Huang et al., 2014). Nonconformity, expertise, and the desire to be distinct in a positive way characterize the need for uniqueness, aligning with the motivations of individuals with independent self-construal. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Independent self-construal will be positively related to the need for uniqueness.

 

According to uniqueness theory, the pursuit of distinguishing oneself from others is a potent and continuous force in individual actions (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977). Since the activities associated with radical creativity are extremely complex, difficult, and risky, it is possible for employees with independent self-construal to attain their goal of differentiation by presenting original ideas and exhibiting radical creativity (Mao et al., 2021). In addition, the need for uniqueness means that employees are less influenced by conformity pressure and social norms embedded in the organization (Simonson & Nowlis, 2000), which can also protect potentially breakthrough novelties from social encroachment and facilitate the formulation of radical creativity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The need for uniqueness will mediate the positive relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity.

An error-management climate has been described as a shared perception of organizational error communication, error knowledge sharing, error environment improvement, and error handling (van Dyck et al., 2005). The core of an error-management climate is empathically accepting errors within the organization and reducing negative error outcomes by viewing them as management resources (Fischer et al., 2018; van Dyck et al., 2005). Characteristics of this type of environment include a positive attitude toward taking risks, trying new things, and preventing individuals from being punished for errors, all of which reduce the constraints on individuals’ behavior and enhance a sense of safety in exploring (Frese & Keith, 2015; Hofmann & Mark, 2006). Positive reinforcement can alleviate negative emotions, such as psychological pressure and guilt, caused by errors as well as empowering individuals to focus their energy on learning and development (Butcher et al., 2017; Hodges & Gardner, 2014).

 

Uniqueness theory highlights that the need for uniqueness will vary across differing external situations (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Since a high level of error-management climate encourages trying new things, it may strengthen employees’ desire for uniqueness (Snyder, 1992; van Dyck et al., 2005). In addition, it may encourage employees with independent self-construal to increase their investment in radical creativity by providing them with psychological freedom (Malik et al., 2019; Maurer et al., 2017). In contrast, in a low level of error-management climate, employees are less likely to seek uniqueness due to fear of punishment and blame (Amaldoss & Jain, 2005), thus reducing instances of radical creativity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: An error-management climate will moderate the positive relationship between independent self-construal and the need for uniqueness.

Hypothesis 5: An error-management climate will moderate the indirect effect of independent self-construal on radical creativity via the need for uniqueness.

 

The theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.

 

We recruited employees and their immediate supervisors at high-tech firms in China by distributing email advertisements with links between January and March 2023. The email described the purpose of the study and emphasized the principle of survey anonymity. To minimize the influence of common method bias on the research results, we administered the online questionnaires at two time points. At Time 1, employees answered questions regarding their independent self-construal and the error-management climate at their workplace. One month later (Time 2), employees reported their need for uniqueness, and we issued questionnaires to their immediate supervisors, who rated the employees’ radical creativity. Our research adhered to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All respondents provided informed consent and participated voluntarily.

 

Overall, 574 respondents participated in the data-collection session at Time 1, and 416 returned questionnaires at Time 2. After matching and screening the sample consisted of 277 employees and 76 supervisors, totaling 277 dyads (valid response rate = 66.59%). The exclusion criteria for questionnaires included missing key variables, too-quick completion, and inadequate responses. Among the respondents, 126 employees were men (45.49%) and 151 were women (54.51%). The youngest employee was 22 years old, the oldest was 46 years old, and the mean age was 31.70 years (SD = 5.50). Employees with a high school degree or lower level of education accounted for 0.40% of the sample, those with a college degree accounted for 15.90%, those with a bachelor’s degree accounted for 70.80%, and those with a master’s degree or higher accounted for 12.90%. The mean job tenure was 8.4 years (SD = 5.00).

This study used mature scales that have been well-established in previous studies. We translated the scales into Chinese and then back into English to ensure accuracy. All items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

 

Employees rated their level of independent self-construal using a five-item scale developed by Cojuharenco et al. (2012). A sample item is “I feel great when I perform better than other colleagues.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .75.

 

 

Employees reported their need for uniqueness using a four-item scale developed by Lynn and Harris (1997). A sample item is “Being different is important to me.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .86.

 

Employees reported their perception of their organization’s error-management climate using a 16-item scale developed by Cigularov et al. (2010). A sample item is “If errors occur in teamwork, we will think through how to correct it.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .85.

 

Supervisors rated employees’ radical creativity using a three-item scale developed by Madjar et al. (2011). A sample item is “The employee came up with a disruptive idea for the current job.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .72.

 

We controlled for the possible effects of the demographic variables of gender (0 = man, 1 = woman), age (years), education level (1 = junior high school or less, 2 = senior middle school, 3 = college or associate’s degree, 4 = bachelor’s degree, 5 = master’s degree or above), and job tenure (years). In addition, we controlled for intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy, since these attributes may influence employees’ radical creativity (Jaussi & Randel, 2014; Malik et al., 2019). Employees reported their intrinsic motivation using a four-item scale developed by Grant (2008); Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .88. Employees reported their creative self-efficacy using a three-item scale developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002); Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .78.

We used Amos 23.0 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis and Mplus 7.0 to test the hypotheses.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of our four focal research variables (independent self-construal, need for uniqueness, radical creativity, and error-management climate) and two critical control variables (intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy) to test discriminant validity. Table 1 indicates that the fit of the six-factor model was superior to that of the other alternative models, χ²/df = 1.53, Tucker–Lewis index = .90, comparative fit index = .91, root-mean-square error of approximation = .044. Thus, the six constructs had good discriminant validity.

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables. The results indicated that independent self-construal was significantly related to radical creativity and the need for uniqueness. Meanwhile, the need for uniqueness was significantly related to radical creativity, supporting our hypotheses.

We used Mplus 7.0 to test the hypotheses. Table 3 shows that independent self-construal was positively related to radical creativity and the need for uniqueness, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2.

As can be seen in the M6 column, the need for uniqueness was positively related to radical creativity, indicating a mediating effect. To further examine the mediation model, we conducted a bootstrapping analysis (5,000 replications). The mediating effect of the need for uniqueness on the relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity was .021 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded zero [0.004, 0.052], supporting Hypothesis 3.

 

The M3 column in Table 3 shows that the interaction term of independent self-construal and error-management climate was positively related to the need for uniqueness, supporting Hypothesis 4. In addition, we adopted a bootstrapping analysis (5,000 replications) to further test the moderating path. A simple slope analysis indicated that the coefficient of a high level of error-management climate was significant, b = 0.302, 95% CI [0.115, 0.498]. However, the coefficient was not significant when there was a low level of error-management climate, b = 0.021, 95% CI [–0.177, 0.208]. The difference between high and low levels of error-management climate was also significant, b = 0.281, 95% CI [0.057, 0.493]. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. In addition, as Figure 2 shows, the relationship between independent self-construal and the need for uniqueness was stronger when the error-management climate was high compared to when it was low, supporting Hypothesis 4.

 

We also adopted the moderating path analysis method introduced by Edwards and Lambert (2007) and used bootstrapping (5,000 replications) to test Hypothesis 5. The influence of error-management climate on the moderated mediation effect was significant, b = 0.039, SE = 0.021, 95% CI [0.009, 0.092]. Further, the indirect effect of independent self-construal on radical creativity through the need for uniqueness was significant when there was a high level of error-management climate, 0.039, 95% CI [0.012, 0.087], but the indirect effect was not significant when there was a low level of error-management climate, 0.003, 95% CI [–0.022, 0.032]. The difference between high and low levels of error-management climate was significant, 0.037, 95% CI [0.008, 0.086]. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

This study investigated the relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity, utilizing uniqueness theory as a framework and the company’s error-management climate and employees’ need for uniqueness as mediators. The results showed that independent self-construal was positively related to radical creativity and the need for uniqueness. In addition, the need for uniqueness played a mediating role between independent self-construal and radical creativity. Last, we found that an error-management climate positively moderated the relationship between independent self-construal and the need for uniqueness, as well as the indirect effect of independent self-construal on radical creativity through the need for uniqueness. These research results supported all of our hypotheses.

This study makes three major contributions to the literature. First, we have offered a fresh perspective on the development of radical creativity by exploring its relationship with independent self-construal according to uniqueness theory. Although previous studies have discussed the personal and contextual factors associated with radical creativity (Malik et al., 2019; Xu & Wang, 2018), little research has examined how construing the self in relation to others influences employees’ motivation toward radical creativity.

 

Second, this study extends understanding of how independent self-construal influences radical creativity by identifying the need for uniqueness as a mediator. According to uniqueness theory, employees with independent self-construal pursue personal achievement and the expression of internal abilities, so they tend to participate in activities that contribute to their sense of distinctiveness (Tian et al., 2001), such as developing radical ideas. By exploring these variables, this study has shed light on the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity.

 

Third, this study elaborates on the condition of the effect path of independent self-construal from the perspective of an external situation, that is, the moderating role of an error-management climate. According to uniqueness theory, the inclusive work environment that a high level of error-management climate facilitates may strengthen the counterconformity motivation of employees who construe themselves as independent (Amaldoss & Jain, 2005), contributing to greater radical creativity.

This study also provides guidance for managerial practice. First, we recommend that organizations pay attention to employees’ ways of constructing the self in relation to others. It would be beneficial for managers to attach great importance to the assessment of the independent self-construal of candidates in the recruitment process and provide sufficient autonomy for employees to maintain independent thinking. Second, organizations ought to value the important role of the need for uniqueness. We recommend that companies recruit candidates with a stronger need for uniqueness or move employees who seek uniqueness to positions that prioritize breakthrough novelty. Last, we recommend that organizations aim to create an inclusive environment that encourages employees to learn from errors and continue to explore new ideas. Managers could lead discussions regarding errors, document errors, and emphasize error tolerance. In addition, they could reward employees who report errors and help others after errors occur.

This study has some limitations. First, we primarily explored the mediating role of the need for uniqueness in the relationship between independent self-construal and radical creativity; however, other mechanisms may also influence this relationship. For example, individuals with independent self-construal generally have weak ties that can enlarge informational sources and provide heterogeneous resources conducive to the development of radical creativity. Thus, researchers could investigate additional network properties as mediators to deepen our understanding of how independent self-construal influences radical creativity. Second, this study discussed only the moderating role of an error-management climate, but there may be other boundary conditions. Future research could further explore alternative possible moderating paths, such as inclusive leadership that provides employees with opportunities to express their own ideas and enhances their belief in their own abilities. Last, we administered this survey in China; therefore, it is uncertain if our findings would apply to Western culture. Future researchers could design cross-cultural studies to increase the generalizability of the results.

Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 30–42.

 

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(5), 1297–1333.

 

Butcher, L., Phau, I., & Shimul, A. S. (2017). Uniqueness and status consumption in Generation Y consumers: Does moderation exist? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 35(5), 673–687.

 

Cigularov, K. P., Chen, P. Y., & Rosecrance, J. (2010). The effects of error management climate and safety communication on safety: A multi-level study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1498–1506.

 

Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 447–461.

 

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179.

 

Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 99–116.

 

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

 

Fischer, S., Frese, M., Mertins, J. C., & Hardt‐Gawron, J. V. (2018). The role of error management culture for firm and individual innovativeness. Applied Psychology, 67(3), 428–453.

 

Frese, M., & Keith, N. (2015). Action errors, error management, and learning in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 661–687.

 

George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.

 

Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21–28.

 

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.

 

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

 

Hodges, M. E., & Gardner, D. (2014). Examining the influence of error climate on aviation maintenance performance. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 7, Article e1.

 

Hofmann, D. A., & Mark, B. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between safety climate and medication errors as well as other nurse and patient outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 847–869.

 

Huang, X. I., Zhang, M., Hui, M. K., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2014). Warmth and conformity: The effects of ambient temperature on product preferences and financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 241-250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.09.009

 

Jaussi, K. S., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, knowledge retrieval, and incremental and radical creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 400–410.

 

Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178.

 

Lee, S. Y., Gregg, A. P., & Park, S. H. (2013). The person in the purchase: Narcissistic consumers prefer products that positively distinguish them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 335–352.

 

Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self‐uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883.

 

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743.

 

Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on radical and incremental creativity: The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 1013–1026.

 

Mao, J.-Y., Quan, J., Li, Y., & Xiao, J. (2021). The differential implications of employee narcissism for radical versus incremental creativity: A self-affirmation perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 933–949.

 

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

 

Maurer, T. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Lippstreu, M. (2017). A model of leadership motivations, error management culture, leadership capacity, and career success. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 481–507.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12181.

 

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.

 

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342.

 

Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68.

 

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

 

Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9–24.

 

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527.

 

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. Plenum Press. 

 

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.

 

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.

 

van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240.

 

Wiekens, C. J., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). I versus we: The effects of self-construal level on diversity. Social Cognition, 26(3), 368–377.

 

Xu, F., & Wang, X. (2018). Leader creativity expectations and follower radical creativity: Based on the perspective of creative process. Chinese Management Studies, 13(1), 214–234.