Confucianism is considered to be the core value in Chinese culture (Lin, 2010; Wei & Li, 2013) and Zhongyong thinking originates in this philosophy. Zhong means equilibrium, and yong means harmoniousness, so that Zhongyong thinking represents maintaining balance and harmony, also known as the doctrine of the mean. C.-H. Wu and Lin (2005) defined Zhongyong thinking as “considering things carefully from different aspects and conducting appropriate behaviors to account for whole situation” (p. 300). They argued that Zhongyong thinking consists of three features: multithinking, holism, and harmoniousness, and suggested that the goal of Zhongyong thinking is to reduce conflict as well as maintain harmony. Multithinking means thinking about ideas from diverse perspectives, holism means integrating an individual’s internal needs and external information as a whole, and harmoniousness means taking harmonious action when dealing with interpersonal conflict (C.-H. Wu & Lin, 2005; Yang et al., 2016).

Innovation in the workplace has become one of the most important determinants of organizational performance and longer term survival in today’s competitive business environment (Bowen & Ricketts, 1992; Camisón & Villar-López, 2014). Employee creativity is recognized as the main source of organizational innovation (Anderson et al., 2014). Liu et al. (2015) argued that cultural values affect people’s way of thinking and have a significant influence on their creativity. Hence, the effects of Zhongyong thinking on employee creativity have begun to attract increasing scholarly attention. For example, G. Zhang and Gu (2015) examined the effect of the dimensions of multithinking, holism, and harmoniousness in Zhongyong thinking on employee creativity, and found that each of these dimensions was positively correlated with employee creativity. S. Wu et al. (2020) tested knowledge hiding as the mediating mechanism that underlies the relationship of Zhongyong thinking with employee creativity. Knowledge hiding refers to “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person” (Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65). S. Wu et al. revealed that Zhongyong thinking has a positive effect on employee creativity and that this relationship is negatively mediated by knowledge hiding. However, Yao et al. (2010) found that Zhongyong thinking might hinder the transformation of creative ideas into innovative behavior. They argued that Zhongyong thinkers prefer compromise and the avoidance of extremes; thus, they are willing to give up their own views. Liu et al. (2015) utilized the Zhongyong Practical Thinking Scale (J. Huang et al., 2012) and the Creative Personality Scale (S0ng, 2012), and reported finding a negative relationship between Zhongyong thinking and creative personality among a group of Chinese arts major undergraduates.

These research findings are inconsistent, indicating a lack of knowledge of the mechanisms that explain the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. Leung and Wang (2015) suggested that some indigenous Chinese concepts like Zhongyong are novel in Western literature, and research based on these concepts may extend current theories on creativity that were developed in Western cultural contexts. Knowledge is considered to be a fundamental raw material for individual creativity (Weisberg, 1998), and, in turn, knowledge sharing is an important factor that facilitates employee creativity (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). Knowledge sharing is defined as “the provision of task information and know-how to help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement policies or procedures” (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 117). Therefore, my purpose in this study was to examine the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity as well as the mediating effect of knowledge sharing in this association, in a Chinese context.

Yao et al. (2010) argued that Zhongyong thinkers focus on taking a holistic perspective of the whole situation before acting, and prefer to select a balanced and harmonized course of action. Integrated thinking is a characteristic of Zhongyong thinking (C.-H. Wu & Lin, 2005; G. Zhang & Gu, 2015). Zhou et al. (2020) explored the influences of Zhongyong thinking on creative problem solving, and revealed that integrated thinking can promote creative solutions to market investment problems. They pointed out that integrated thinking has an emphasis on compiling information from various sources, which requires top-down processes like cognitive control and attention. Top-down processing begins with perceptions of the most general and moves toward the more specific. These perceptions are heavily influenced by expectations and prior knowledge. Processing information from the top down allows the individual to make sense of content that has already been brought in by the senses, working downward from initial impressions to particular details. It is the exact skill necessary to excel with creative tasks.

T. Chen et al. (2015) reported that harmony enhancement has a positive relationship with Chinese employees’ creative performance. This is because a harmony-enhancement motive leads to a positive psychological climate for Chinese employees, and allows them to reconcile interpersonal differences, resulting in them putting creative effort toward building harmonious relationships (Leung et al., 2002). Hence, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Zhongyong thinking will be positively related to Chinese employees’ creativity.

Extensive domain-specific knowledge is a prerequisite for creativity (Weisberg, 1998). In cognitive models of creativity the importance of information and knowledge search and acquisition for creative solutions is suggested (Mumford et al., 1991). In organizations information and knowledge may be obtained from internal and external sources. Knowledge sharing enables individuals to take advantage of existing knowledge resources both inside and outside the organization, thus improving their ability to create solutions (Carmeli et al., 2013; Wang & Noe, 2010). It has been demonstrated that sharing knowledge from both internal and external sources is related to employees’ creative problem-solving capacity (Carmeli et al., 2013). Thus, knowledge sharing is essential in supporting employee creativity.

However, some people think that knowledge is important for them to maintain an advantage, and are unwilling to share their knowledge with others (L. Zhang et al., 2005). As described, Zhongyong thinking is an interaction style emphasizing interpersonal harmony (Yang et al., 2016). In a harmonious atmosphere, the risk of knowledge sharing would be significantly reduced because of the knowledge-sharers’ positive feelings toward others, their benign intention, and their common concern for the need to complete organizational tasks (C. C. Chen et al., 2016). In a comparative study Chow et al. (2000) showed that individuals from a Chinese cultural background were more likely than were those from the US to share knowledge with their fellow members for the benefit of the organization. Thus, I anticipated that by facilitating knowledge sharing, Zhongyong thinking would be a crucial precursor to employee creativity, and I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Knowledge sharing will mediate the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and Chinese employees’ creativity.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The convenience sample of participants comprised part-time Master of Business Administration students from three universities in Eastern China. After obtaining permission to conduct the study from the appropriate school authorities, I emailed the survey form to the participants and their immediate supervisors, respectively, with the assistance of faculty at each university. I obtained written consent from all participants, and their confidentiality was assured. Zhongyong thinking and knowledge sharing were self-assessed by employees, and employee creativity was assessed by immediate supervisors.

Among 410 paired forms distributed to supervisors and subordinates, I received valid responses from 285 supervisor–subordinate dyads for further analysis (response rate = 69.5%). Of the valid forms from subordinate respondents, 57.5% were from men, 39.3% were from women, and 3.2% did not indicate gender in their response. The mean age of the subordinates was 30.70 years (SD = 6.12, range = 27–35). In terms of job type, 16.8% were employed in marketing and sales, 13.3% in accounting, 12.3% in logistics, 10.2% in manufacturing, 7.7% in engineering, 14.7% in human resources, 13.7% in administration, and 11.2% in other types of work. I did not collect gender and age data from the supervisors.

Measures

All items were measured with a self-report approach using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Zhongyong Thinking Scale (C.-H. Wu & Lin, 2005) was initially written in Chinese. All other measures were translated from English into Chinese and then back-translated by three doctoral students working in the area of organizational behavior, each of whom had more than 1 year of learning experience in a North American university.

Zhongyong Thinking
Zhongyong thinking was measured with C.-H. Wu and Lin’s (2005) 14-item scale, which has three subdimensions: multithinking (four items; e.g., “I usually think about the same thing from different perspectives”); holism (five items; e.g., “I will adjust my original idea after taking into account the views of others”), and harmoniousness (four items; e.g., “When making a decision, I will consider the harmony of the whole”). In line with the practice of S. Wu et al. (2020), I used item parcels in the analysis and aggregated the three dimensions of Zhongyong thinking into one global dimension.

Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing was measured with Lu et al.’s (2006) scale, which comprises six positively stated items (e.g., “I share useful work experience and know-how with others”) and two negatively stated items (e.g., “I keep my work experience to myself and am reluctant to share it with others”). For the negatively stated items, scores are reversed so that higher total scores indicate greater knowledge sharing.

Employee Creativity
Supervisors rated their subordinates’ creativity by responding to the four-item scale developed by Farmer et al. (2003). A sample item is “This employee seeks new ideas and ways to solve problems.”

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The measurement model was tested by comparing the fit of a three-factor model (Zhongyong thinking, knowledge sharing, and employee creativity) to the fit of a single-factor model (combining all the three variables into one factor). The results show that the three-factor model had a good fit to the data, chi-square (χ²)/degrees of freedom (df) ratio = 2.43, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, incremental fit index (IFI) = .97. In contrast, the single-factor model had a poor fit, χ²/df = 13.95, RMSEA = .25, CFI = .48, IFI = .50. This supports the validity of the hypothesized three-factor measurement model. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables.

Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. Consistent with my expectation, Zhongyong thinking had a significant positive association with knowledge sharing, and knowledge sharing had a significant positive association with employee creativity, as shown in Figure 1. The bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the indirect relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity was [.12, .38]. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. However, Zhongyong thinking was nonsignificantly related to employee creativity. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Discussion

In this study I examined the influence of Zhongyong thinking on employee creativity in a Chinese context. Results show that Zhongyong thinking had an indirect effect on employee creativity via the mediator of knowledge sharing. The findings provide important theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The results I obtained extend the current literature on the relationship of Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity by addressing the underlying process by which Zhongyong thinking ultimately manifests itself in Chinese employees’ creativity. The results support a full mediation model, such that knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. These findings are consistent with the arguments made in prior research that employees with a Chinese cultural background tend to share information with others for the benefit of the organization (Chow et al., 2000), and that knowledge sharing is beneficial to employee creativity (Carmeli et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013).

The indirect effect of Zhongyong thinking on employee creativity found in this study suggests that Chinese traditional philosophy, as manifested by Zhongyong thinking, may not necessarily lead directly to employee creativity. Rather, employees who use Zhongyong thinking will participate in knowledge-sharing activities and, through the effect of these activities, will improve their creativity at work. Although S. Wu et al. (2020) reported finding a negative mediating effect of knowledge hiding in the Zhongyong thinking–employee creativity relationship, I focused on knowledge sharing, a different knowledge management behavior, and found there was a positive mediating effect of knowledge sharing in the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. These findings indicate that Zhongyong thinkers do not hide their knowledge from others; instead, they are more open and willing to share their knowledge than are those who do not use Zhongyong thinking (de Vries et al., 2006; C.-H. Wu & Lin, 2005; S. Wu et al., 2020).

Moreover, my findings do not support the direct influence of Zhongyong thinking on employee creativity that was reported by S. Wu et al. (2020). China is considered a collectivistic society based on Confucian culture, where group goals are viewed as a higher priority compared to personal goals (H. Huang, 2005). Differing from Western cultural tendencies, Confucianism emphasizes hierarchical relationships, family system, and benevolence, which all conflict with creativity (Kim, 2009) because in this hierarchical system of relationships it is emphasized that males are higher than females, and teachers are higher than students. This hierarchy inflicts upon its subjects a sense of rigidity and a system of inequitable obligations. The emphasis in the family system when following this hierarchy is on strict parenting and filial piety and strict obedience, which reduce autonomy and independence, discourage divergence, and inhibit creativity. Benevolence may lead to negative consequences for creativity because of suppression of emotion, minimization of verbal interaction, and an emphasis on conformity. Thus, people in a collectivistic culture, such as China, appreciate norms, obedience, and compliance with authority. Creative ideas are often considered deviant and can also be harmful to the harmony within the collective (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Thus, Chinese employees who use Zhongyong thinking show little creativity when in collectivistic groups.

In terms of practical implications, managers who want to enhance employee creativity should aim to improve employees’ Zhongyong thinking and facilitate their knowledge sharing. Activities and behaviors should be implemented that emphasize interpersonal harmony and encourage multithinking and integrated thinking. At the same time, employees should be encouraged to participate in knowledge-sharing behavior.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations. First, given the cross-sectional research design, it is difficult to infer the causality among variables. Future researchers could conduct longitudinal studies to confirm these causal relationships. Second, I examined knowledge sharing as a mediator of the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. Rhee and Choi (2017) proposed an expanded framework of knowledge management behavior, including knowledge sharing, hiding, and manipulation. Knowledge manipulation refers to the intentional exaggeration of the value and content of one’s knowledge for one’s benefit (Bettis-Outland, 1999). Rhee and Choi found that knowledge hiding was negatively related to creativity, and knowledge sharing and knowledge manipulation were positively related to, and meaningful antecedents of individual creativity. Future researchers could explore the role of knowledge manipulation as a mediator in the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity.

References

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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Bettis-Outland, H. (1999). The impact of information distortion within the context of implementing and sustaining a market orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7(4), 251–263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/096525499346369

Bowen, A., & Ricketts, M. (1992). Stimulating innovation in industry: The challenge for the United Kingdom. National Economic Development Office [Policy Issues Series]. Kogan Page in association with the National Economic Development Office. https://bit.ly/3jSPSWA

Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891–2902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.06.004

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem-solving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 95–121.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21514

Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33, 903–934.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0

Chen, T., Leung, K., Li, F., & Ou, Z. (2015). Interpersonal harmony and creativity in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 648–672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2001

Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 65–95.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.65

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737

de Vries, R. E., van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285366

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040653

Huang, H. (2005). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 324–345.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh065

Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Yang, C. (2012). Revision of the Zhongyong Belief and Value Scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Study, 38, 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2012.38.3

Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01307.x

Leung, K., Tremain Koch, P., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016287501806

Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of creativity. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 261–278). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927678.013.0017

Lin, C. (2010). Studying Chinese culture and conflict: A research agenda. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 70–93.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061011016632

Liu, H., Wang, F.-X., & Yang, X.-Y. (2015). More dialectical thinking, less creativity? The relationship between dialectical thinking style and creative personality: The case of China. PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0122926.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122926

Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x

Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking ethical leadership to employee creativity: Knowledge sharing and self-efficacy as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 41(9), 1409–1419.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1409

Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares., L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380

Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 813–832.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2168

Song, H. (2012). Discussion of the creative personality structure of college students and preparation for a rating scale (Published master’s thesis) [In Chinese]. Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001

Wei, X., & Li, Q. (2013). The Confucian value of harmony and its influence on Chinese social interaction. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 60–66.
https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020130901.12018

Weisberg, R. W. (1998). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.014

Wu, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.

Wu, S., Sun, Z., & Quan, Y. (2020). Impact mechanism of Zhongyong thinking on knowledge hiding and employees’ creativity [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Management, 17(4), 527–535.

Yang, X., Zhang, P., Zhao, J., Zhao, J., Wang, J., Chen, Y., … Zhang, X. (2016). Confucian culture still matters: The benefits of Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of the mean) for mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(8), 1097–1113.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116658260

Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x

Zhang, G., & Gu, X. (2015). Moderation thinking and employees’ creativity [In Chinese]. Science Research Management, 36, 251–257.
https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2015.s1.037

Zhang, L., Li, J., & Shi, Y. (2005). Study on improving efficiency of knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive organizations. In X. Deng & Y. Ye (Eds.), Internet and network economics. Lecture notes in computer science, 3828 LNCS (pp. 816–825). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/11600930_83

Zhou, Z., Zhang, H., Li, M., Sun, C., & Luo, H. (2020). The effects of Zhongyong thinking priming on creative problem-solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.441

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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Bettis-Outland, H. (1999). The impact of information distortion within the context of implementing and sustaining a market orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7(4), 251–263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/096525499346369

Bowen, A., & Ricketts, M. (1992). Stimulating innovation in industry: The challenge for the United Kingdom. National Economic Development Office [Policy Issues Series]. Kogan Page in association with the National Economic Development Office. https://bit.ly/3jSPSWA

Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891–2902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.06.004

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem-solving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 95–121.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21514

Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33, 903–934.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0

Chen, T., Leung, K., Li, F., & Ou, Z. (2015). Interpersonal harmony and creativity in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 648–672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2001

Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 65–95.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.65

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737

de Vries, R. E., van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285366

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040653

Huang, H. (2005). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 324–345.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh065

Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Yang, C. (2012). Revision of the Zhongyong Belief and Value Scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Study, 38, 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2012.38.3

Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01307.x

Leung, K., Tremain Koch, P., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016287501806

Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of creativity. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 261–278). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927678.013.0017

Lin, C. (2010). Studying Chinese culture and conflict: A research agenda. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 70–93.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061011016632

Liu, H., Wang, F.-X., & Yang, X.-Y. (2015). More dialectical thinking, less creativity? The relationship between dialectical thinking style and creative personality: The case of China. PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0122926.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122926

Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x

Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking ethical leadership to employee creativity: Knowledge sharing and self-efficacy as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 41(9), 1409–1419.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1409

Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares., L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380

Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 813–832.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2168

Song, H. (2012). Discussion of the creative personality structure of college students and preparation for a rating scale (Published master’s thesis) [In Chinese]. Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001

Wei, X., & Li, Q. (2013). The Confucian value of harmony and its influence on Chinese social interaction. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 60–66.
https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020130901.12018

Weisberg, R. W. (1998). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.014

Wu, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.

Wu, S., Sun, Z., & Quan, Y. (2020). Impact mechanism of Zhongyong thinking on knowledge hiding and employees’ creativity [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Management, 17(4), 527–535.

Yang, X., Zhang, P., Zhao, J., Zhao, J., Wang, J., Chen, Y., … Zhang, X. (2016). Confucian culture still matters: The benefits of Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of the mean) for mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(8), 1097–1113.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116658260

Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x

Zhang, G., & Gu, X. (2015). Moderation thinking and employees’ creativity [In Chinese]. Science Research Management, 36, 251–257.
https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2015.s1.037

Zhang, L., Li, J., & Shi, Y. (2005). Study on improving efficiency of knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive organizations. In X. Deng & Y. Ye (Eds.), Internet and network economics. Lecture notes in computer science, 3828 LNCS (pp. 816–825). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/11600930_83

Zhou, Z., Zhang, H., Li, M., Sun, C., & Luo, H. (2020). The effects of Zhongyong thinking priming on creative problem-solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.441

The author thanks Dr. Liyin Wang for her useful suggestions and technological help.

Zhonghe Fan, School of Business Administration, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, No. 7366, East 2nd Ring Road, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]