Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study

This study investigated the relationship between time pressure and creativity with a new method for examining daily thoughts, experiences, and events in organizations. Daily electronic questionnaires were obtained over periods of up to 30 weeks from 177 individuals in seven companies as they worked on projects requiring creativity. Narrative reports of events occurring in those projects were used to extract measures of participants’ creative cognitive processing, and daily scale-rated items yielded measures of time pressure. Analyses incorporating several controls, including the number of hours worked, indicated that time pressure on a given day negatively predicted creative cognitive processing that day, one day later, two days later, and over longer time periods as well. The relationship may be a direct one; it was not mediated by intrinsic motivation in this study, and prior research suggests that time pressure may directly constrain cognitive processes related to creativity. These results have theoretical implications for understanding how creativity is affected by various aspects of the work environment, and methodological implications for looking inside the “black box” of creative thinking. Time Pressure and Creativity 1 Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study Time pressure is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of work in America. Both the business press and the organizational literature have identified a “time famine,” in which people feel that there are never enough hours in the work day (Perlow, 1999). Indeed, it is likely that anyone reading this paper has a daunting “To Do” list on the current mental agenda. At the same time, with the growth of knowledge work, there is an increasingly urgent need for creative thinking in organizations. Are these two trends at odds? Might increasing time pressure be sabotaging organizational efforts to produce useful new ideas? Researchers have paid scant attention to this question, and lay wisdom includes contradictory views about the effects of time pressure. Some people hold that it spurs them on to their best work; others say that it makes high levels of performance almost impossible. In this paper, we report a study examining the relationship between time pressure and creative thinking. In addition, we introduce a new methodology for observing creative thinking as it occurs in organizations. We suggest that time pressure, although it may spur people on to do more work, may undermine precisely the kind of thinking needed to do creative work. Prior research on performance effects has demonstrated clearly that time pressure – defined as either subjectively perceived time pressure or the imposition of a deadline – increases the rate of individual and group performance (Kelly & Karau, 1993, 1999). However, results have been much less consistent on the quality of performance, with evidence of a positive relationship (Kelly & Karau, 1999), a negative relationship (Kelly & McGrath, 1985), a curvilinear relationship indicating an optimal level of moderate time pressure (Isenberg, 1981), and no relationship at all (Bassett, 1979). Importantly, most of this research has focused on the performance of relatively straightforward tasks rather than tasks requiring creativity. Indeed, there is little research directly examining the effect of time pressure on creativity, which is defined as a novel, appropriate response to an open-ended task (Amabile, 1983). We found only four previous studies, with three showing a negative effect and one showing a positive effect. An experimental study found that products generated by groups working under a 10-minute time limit were rated as less creative than those generated by groups working under a 20-minute time limit (Kelly & McGrath, 1985). A survey study of marketing professionals revealed a negative relationship between perceived time pressure and perceived overall creativity of marketing ideas (Andrews & Smith, 1996). A negative effect was also uncovered in a field study of workload pressure, defined by items concerning both perceived time pressure and perceived workload (which were highly inter-related). This study found suggestive (but weak) evidence that greater workload pressure was associated with less creative group projects in organizations (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). One field study, however, obtained opposite results; this study, conducted 30 years ago, found a positive relationship between scientists’ reported time pressure at a particular point in Time Pressure and Creativity 2 time and the supervisor-rated innovativeness of their work five years later (Andrews & Farris, 1972). Thus, although prior research on time pressure and creativity generally suggests a negative relationship, the body of empirical evidence is far from robust. Moreover, none of the few previous studies on time pressure and creativity has presented a strong theoretical framework for understanding how time pressure might have its effects. Most importantly, no research has directly examined the process that presumably underlies the production of creative work – creative thinking. We set out to do so in the present study. Creative Cognitive Processing The componential theory of creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996) presents a promising framework for understanding the effects of time pressure. This theory, presented in modified form in Figure 1, can be useful in two ways. First, of the three primary theories of organizational creativity (Amabile, 1988; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), it is the only one to include time pressure. Specifically, it predicts that time pressure will have a negative effect on creativity. Second, like other psychological theories of creativity (Campbell, 1960; Simonton, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Wallas, 1926), it outlines the elements of creative thinking, or creative cognitive processing. It suggests two ways in which time pressure might have an effect: by directly affecting creative cognitive processing, and by affecting this processing through a motivational mechanism. Creative cognitive processing is central to creativity theories, because it is this set of various cognitive processes that most immediately determines the creativity of work outcomes. As shown in Figure 1, creative cognitive processing contains four basic elements: (a) identification and understanding of the problem or task, sparked by either an external or an internal stimulus; (b) preparation, involving learning and remembering, which helps to build up, reactivate, and/or incubate relevant information for the particular problem at hand; (c) response generation, or coming up with ideas for solving the problem; and (d) response validation and communication, involving articulating, testing, and trying out the most promising response possibilities. An individual engages in these processes, often cycling repeatedly through the various elements in different sequences, until the problem is solved or the task is completed. To the extent that this process is fostered, outcomes should be more creative. As essential as creative cognitive processing is to any creativity theory, this “black box” has been virtually ignored by prior research – most likely because looking at this processing, particularly in real-world settings, presents formidable methodological challenges. It is important to develop ways to meet those challenges, in order to fully understand how creativity happens and how it might be affected by time pressure and other features of the work environment. In the present study, we developed a methodology to observe evidence of creative cognitive processes as they were occurring in organizations. We then investigated whether perceived time pressure predicts those processes. Time Pressure and Creativity 3 Time Pressure and Creative Cognitive Processing We propose that time pressure, in the moderate to high levels generally experienced in contemporary organizations, has a direct negative effect on creative cognitive processing. According to the componential theory, creativity is determined by the effects of one extra-individual (outside the person) component and three intraindividual (inside the person) components on creative cognitive processing. The extraindividual component is the external work environment, consisting of several features of the organizational climate, the work group climate, managerial behaviors, and task constraints – including time pressure for getting the work done. The theory focuses on an indirect route by which the work environment might influence creativity – through influences on the intra-individual components. However, although it is not explicitly predicted by the theory, a direct effect of time pressure is suggested by a metaphor in the most recent revision of the theory (Amabile, 1996). According to this metaphor, doing a task or solving a problem is like getting through a maze; the comparison derives from Newell, Shaw, and Simon’s (1962) notion that creativity depends on the exploration of the maze of available cognitive pathways. Although satisfactory outcomes can be attained by following a straight path (a familiar task algorithm) out of the maze, creative solutions require exploration of unfamiliar territory. One recent laboratory study designed to examine the applicability of this maze metaphor revealed that people who allocate more time to exploratory task behaviors are more likely to produce work that is rated by observers as creative (Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). If such cognitive exploration of the maze of possibilities is important to creativity, there must be sufficient time devoted to the cognitive processing involved in intellectually playing with ideas and possible solution paths. Indeed, Einstein once referred to creativity as “combinatorial play” (Einstein, 1949). If people are too busy, they may not allocate the time to engage in this sort of thinking. Campbell’s (1960) ground-breaking theory of creative thought proposed that the central process is an evolutionary one, whereby the mind generates more or less blind variations or combinations of ideas, and then selectively retains the most useful novel ideas; Simonton’s more recent theory (1999) elaborates on this notion. The more time that is made available for this type of thinking, the more variations that can be generated and evaluated. There is some suggestive evidence, from prior empirical studies, that successful creative processing is a function of available time. In one laboratory study, participants who were given five minutes to plan their structure-building activity, either by having five minutes to physically play with task materials, or five minutes to simply look at (and mentally play with) the materials, subsequently produced structures that were rated as more creative than those produced by participants who began the structure-building task immediately after being given the materials (Whitney, Ruscio, Amabile, & Castle, 1995). There is suggestive evidence from the problem-solving and decision-making literatures, as well. In a review, Edland and Svenson (1993) noted that people working under time pressure tend to employ the strategies of "filtering (processing some parts of Time Pressure and Creativity 4 the information more, and others less), acceleration, and omission (ignoring particular parts of the information)" (p. 28). For example, in a gambling simulation study, Ben Zur and Breznitz (1981) found that individuals under high time pressure focused almost exclusively on negative information (i.e., probability of losing) and accelerated the decision making process, resulting in a preference for low-risk solutions. Janis (1982) attributes this phenomenon to the state of "hypervigilance" (excessive alertness to signs of threat or pressure) that is triggered by the time pressure and other stressful situations. The reasoning is that, because hypervigilance in response to approaching deadlines causes people to increase the selectivity of the information they process and to make a decision without generating all of the available alternatives, it "leads to ill-considered decisions that are frequently followed by postdecisional conflict and frustration" (Janis, 1982, p. 81). These notions are consonant with those of threat-rigidity theory, which proposes that, under threatening situations, individuals and organizations become more likely to rely on familiar algorithms. In sum, the literature suggests that time pressure is likely to result in shallow, narrow, conservative thinking – the opposite of creative thinking. This shallow, narrow, conservative thinking should affect not only the exploration for new ideas, which is termed “response generation” in the componential theory. (See Figure 1.) It should also affect each of the other elements of creative cognitive processing. Under time pressure, people may be less likely to take the time to understand a problem deeply (“problem or task identification”), or to fully prepare to solve the problem through learning and contemplation of what they have learned (“preparation”), before they delve into response generation. Moreover, they may be less likely to fully think through or talk through the implications of the response possibilities they have generated (“response validation and communication”). In other words, the entire set of elements that make up creative cognitive processing could be adversely affected by time pressure. Thus, as illustrated in Figure 1 (by the double arrow), we propose an addition to the componential theory, whereby certain aspects of the work environment – in this case, time pressure – can have a direct impact on creative cognitive processing. Specifically, building on the componential theory’s description of this processing, as well as prior research on creativity, problem-solving, and decision making, we predict a direct negative effect of time pressure. H1: The more time pressure people are under, the less likely they will be to engage in creative cognitive processing. Intrinsic Motivation The componential theory explicitly predicts a second way in which time pressure might influence creative cognitive processing – indirectly, through a motivational mechanism. Motivation is one of the three intra-individual components of creativity, which consist of: (a) domain-relevant skills (expertise in the task domain), (b) creativityrelevant skills and processes (flexible cognitive style, openness to new ideas, and Time Pressure and Creativity 5 persistent exploration of problems), and (c) intrinsic task motivation (a motivation to engage in the task because it is interesting, involving, or personally challenging). Although the theory suggests that each of the three intra-individual components might be affected by the work environment, it focuses on the motivational component. (See Figure 1.) This focus is based on the assumption that domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant processes are more temporally stable, and thus less subject to environmental influences, than motivation. The theory’s intrinsic motivation principle of creativity states that constraints in the work environment have a negative effect on creativity by undermining intrinsic motivation. Specifically, constraints such as time pressure should lead to lower intrinsic motivation by leading individuals to feel controlled by their environment. When people feel that they are being controlled by some external factor in their work environment, they should attribute their task engagement to that external source. As a result, they should feel less motivated by the work itself, less involved in the work, and less excited about what they are doing; in short, they should have less intrinsic interest in the task. When intrinsic interest is lower, people are less likely to engage in the exploratory behaviors of creative cognitive processing. Rather, they are likely to approach the task more superficially, relying on familiar algorithms. Previous research has demonstrated a direct link between intrinsic motivation and creativity. For example, in one experiment, participants in whom an intrinsic motivation focus had been induced produced work that was rated as significantly more creative than work produced by participants in whom an extrinsic motivation focus had been induced (Amabile, 1985). Moreover, significant positive correlations have been found between trait intrinsic motivation and several measures of creativity (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). Moreover, several experimental studies have supported the basic proposition that constraints in the work environment can lead to lower levels of intrinsic motivation and creativity; these studies have manipulated a variety of constraints (e.g., contracted-for reward (Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971), expected evaluation (Hennessey, 1989), surveillance (Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990), constrained choice (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), and competition (Amabile, 1982a)). However, this proposition has not been investigated for time pressure, which is often cited by motivation researchers as another task constraint that should have similar effects. Although one study (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976) demonstrated a negative effect of time pressure on intrinsic motivation (on a straightforward task that did not allow for creativity), no prior study has simultaneously examined time pressure, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. The present study does so. Given the componential theory’s intrinsic motivation principle, we predict an indirect negative effect of time pressure on creative processing, in addition to the direct effect. Partial mediation by intrinsic motivation would demonstrate operation of both the direct and the indirect effects. H2: Intrinsic motivation will partially mediate the negative relationship between time pressure and creative cognitive processing. Time Pressure and Creativity 6 The Need for a New Methodology As noted earlier, there is no established technique for studying creative cognitive processing in organizations and, thus, no existing methodology for testing these hypotheses. The present study developed a field methodology for glimpsing inside the black box of creative processing, to discover whether and how time pressure might influence it in organizations. This methodology is only justified, however, if indicators of creative cognitive processing do indeed relate to the standard measure of creative outcomes used in the organizational literature. Most recent studies of organizational creativity (e.g., Ford & Gioia, 2000; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; West & Anderson, 1996), as well as creativity in other settings, have relied on the basic approach of the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1982b; 1996). This approach is based on the premise that creativity assessments made by appropriate observers, such as peers or experts familiar with the task domain, provide the most stable and reliable measure of the creativity of individuals, products, or work outcomes – as long as those assessments show an acceptable level of agreement. Thus, we set out to first establish a relationship between creative cognitive processing and creative outcomes as assessed by peers (the link at the top of Figure 1), and then to examine the hypothesized relationships between time pressure and creative cognitive processing. In summary, as illustrated in Figure 1 (shaded portions), the present study investigated four parts of the componential theory of creativity: time pressure, as one aspect of the work environment (the extra-individual component); intrinsic motivation (an intra-individual component); creative cognitive processes; and creative outcomes. In addition to the links between these elements already explicitly predicted by the theory, we suggest and test a new link that is only implied by the theory – a direct connection between time pressure and creative cognitive processes. Moreover, this study attempted to demonstrate a direct connection between creative cognitive processes and creative outcomes – a link that, although assumed in the componential theory and in many other theories of creativity, has not been empirically tested.