Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness Ella Miron-Spektor a,⇑ , Gerard Beenen b a Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel b Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92834-6848, United States article info Article history: Received 19 December 2012 Accepted 2 January 2015 Accepted by Paul Levy Keywords: Creativity Novelty Usefulness Achievement goal orientations Learning Performance Flexibility Closure Negative affect abstract Today’s organizations must foster conditions that motivate employees to develop creative solutions that are both novel and useful. Yet product novelty and usefulness have been characterized by distinct, mutu- ally exclusive motivational processes. We test theory on how learning and performance achievement goals can motivate individuals to develop products that are both novel and useful. In an experimental study (n = 189) using a product development task, a learning achievement goal enhanced novelty by increasing cognitive flexibility. A performance achievement goal enhanced usefulness by increasing cognitive closure. Furthermore, simultaneous inducement of learning and performance goals enhanced novelty and usefulness more than sequential inducement of each goal. Cognitive flexibility and closure mediated the effects of simultaneous goals on both creativity dimensions, with too much cognitive closure thwarting product novelty. The benefits of simultaneous over sequential goals were mitigated when individuals experienced negative affect. Implications for creativity in organizational settings are discussed. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction To stay competitive, today’s knowledge-based organizations must foster conditions that motivate employees to develop cre- ative solutions that are novel and original, yet also useful, feasible and appropriate to a situation (Amabile, 1983; Grant & Berry, 2011). This is easier said than done because these two dimensions of creativity are motivated by distinct or even opposite conditions (Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad, & Choi, 2010; Beersma & De Dreu, 2005; Berg, 2014; Litchfield, 2008; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2011; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010). For instance, indi- viduals generate novel solutions when they are intrinsically moti- vated (Grant & Berry, 2011), feel safe to take risks, and are eager to learn and explore new domains (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). In contrast, individuals develop useful and feasible solutions when they consider the perspective of others (Grant & Berry, 2011), and are eager to reduce uncertainty by drawing on well- known practices and frameworks (Janssen & van Yperen, 2004; Mueller et al., 2011). Given this inherent creative tension between novelty and usefulness that is captured by phrases such as ‘disciplined imagination’ (Weick, 1989), and ‘accepted deviance’ (Sutton & Staw, 1995: 379), an important question is how can organizations motivate employees to develop ideas and solutions that are both novel and useful? For example, should managers encourage employees to take risks and explore new knowledge domains while concurrently recognizing and rewarding effective solutions that are valued by customers? Or should they encourage employ- ees to focus on developing new skills and knowledge during one phase of the creativity process, and on reducing risk by selecting the most feasible solutions during another phase? This study aims to answer these questions by investigating how simultaneous and sequential learning and performance achievement goals motivate individuals in ways that foster either, or both, the novelty and use- fulness dimensions of creativity. Achievement goals are cognitive frames that motivate an individual’s pursuits in achievement settings (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). More general than challenging goals (Locke & Latham, 2002), and more specific than intentions, achievement goals influ- ence how people approach a task and allocate their attention and effort to accomplish desired end states (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Harackiewicz, Barron, Elliot, Tauer, & http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.001 0749-5978/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +972 4 829 5688. E-mail addresses: ellams@ie.technion.ac.il (E. Miron-Spektor), gbeenen@ fullerton.edu (G. Beenen). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 127 (2015) 53–65 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp