Passion, Expertise, Politics, and Support

Creative Dynamics in Advertising Agencies

Sheila L. Sasser and Scott Koslow ABSTRACT: Creativity is a trait that is treasured by both advertising agencies and clients. How is greater creativity nurtured and cultivated in such an intense environment? Passion (in the form of intrinsic motivation) as well as industry expertise and knowledge are highly desirable ingredients for driving creativity in an advertising agency (Young 2003). This research proposes a dynamic framework for greater creativity that includes passion (individual intrinsic motivation) as one of the most important factors in predicting creativity, along with industry expertise and knowledge. As a stimulus, management support for creativity serves to enhance passions influence on creativity in this model, while the influence of expertise is suppressed by organizational politics. The study uses a sample of 1,188 advertising campaigns from major U.S. agencies, reported by 413 respondents, to offer an insightful framework for advertising creativity.

As creativity issues continue to gain prominence in the current economic climate and new creative controversies attract increasing interest from advertising researchers (see Sasser and Koslow 20089), scholars find anomalies and even disconnects between empirical evidence that doesnt appear to match up to prior findings and expectations. One controversy involves the value of management support and encouragement in an agency. This was initially thought to be a given outcome in a straightforward and across-the-board manner, but now quirks and differences are evident in the areas of direct supervisory and workgroup incidences. Amabile et al. (1996) developed her KEYS framework, proposing that various types of encouragement in organizations lead to more creative output. Yet empirical work by Verbeke et al. (2008) conducted with major advertising agencies only finds positive effects for organizational encouragement, but negative effects for workgroup support and supervisory encouragement. A second controversy involves the relative value of expertise, especially expertise in knowing the clients business. Innovation researchers like Damanpour (1991) show that technical expertise is the most consistent and powerful predictor of innovation, so it is tempting to argue that knowledge-based expertise that leads to an understanding of the clients business or consumers should also be a strong predictor of creativity (Young 2003). Nyilasy and Reid (2009) find that agency employees view producing creative advertising as a tacit skill,

Sheila L. Sasser (Ph.D., Wayne State University) is an associate professor, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Eastern Michigan University. Scott Koslow (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is a professor, Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

yet expertise in understanding the clients business is not mentioned. An alternative perspective, however, argues that expertise in creativity is overattributed to individuals, and underattributed to situations (Kasof 1995). That is, agency employees lucky enough to be situated in munificent agency environments comprised of good clients, dynamic markets, or major brands can produce highly creative work (see Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan 2006; Li et al. 2008; Verbeke et al. 2008; West, Kover, and Caruana 2008). However, there may be an incidence of overattribution that such success is due to expertise. Even more puzzling is that clients seem not to automatically accept or buy all the creative campaigns produced by an agency (Sullivan 1998). So it may hold that expertise has only modest effects or that there are some other unidentified factors that were overlooked. To sort through these controversies, Sternberg and Lubarts (1996) confluence theory offers a useful approach. These authors argue that there is rarely just a single influence factor when it comes to creativity. Instead, Sternberg and Lubart insist that creativity enhancement is often a confluence of several effects simultaneously. In terms of modeling development, their work suggests that interaction terms are a most productive focus of attention. Other studies have used this approach, including Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) and Li et al. (2008). With respect to the encouragement-support controversy, it may be that individuals must already be highly internally motivated toward creativity for encouragement to have any effect. Encouragement works by enhancing and reinforcing the effort produced by the creative. This presupposes that encouragement only works if the creative is already willing to expend the effort to be creative in the first place; encouragement then provides an edge or nudge. Absent willingness and motivation, all the encouragement in the world will have only a minimal effect.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 41, no. 3 (Fall 2012), pp. 517. 2013 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com ISSN 00913367 (print)/ISSN 15577805 (online) DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367410301

6 The Journal of Advertising

Thus, in this specific study, support for agency creativitya construct here that is the factor for encouragement and workplace supportamplifies the effect of passion on creativity rather than delivering an independent effect. For the second controversy involving expertise, it is argued that any expertise effect is also moderated by another variable: the presence of organizational politics. When decisions are highly politicized, expert performers question whether their work will be appropriately evaluated, especially fearing possible conflicts over the works value. They hold back applying their expertise. That is, when organizational politics are rife, experts respond rationally and tend to sandbag or refrain from fully exploiting their superior skills (Sasser and Koslow 2008). Hence, high levels of organizational politics suppress the positive influence of expertise on creativity. To probe such dynamics, this study begins by reviewing the literature in creative advertising development, but also draws from innovations research. Next, hypotheses are tested on a data set of 1,188 creative advertising campaigns reported by 413 respondents from large agency offices located in New York, Detroit, and other major advertising markets. As in the studies by West, Kover, and Caruana (2008) and Li et al. (2008), data were collected from advertising agency executives in a questionnaire format. Large research programs such as this allow researchers to explore relationships not explicitly stated in the literature, and thus an additional interaction is found between agency support and politics. In a highly political environment, support has more positive influence. Finally, implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed. Theory Development A creative idea is frequently defined as one that is both original and appropriate (Runco and Charles 1993). Some researchers extend such views into organizational settings, but continue to position the work in terms of how organization characteristics affect individual creativity (Amabile 1988a, 1988b; Verbeke et al. 2008; Williams and Yang 1999). Across these situations, four constructs are examined: motivation, organizational support, expertise, and politics. The potential effect of each construct on advertising creativity will be reviewed for hypotheses development. Motivation Creativity scholars demonstrate that intrinsic motivation or passion is central to creativity because one has to want to be creativeit is virtually an innate trait. Ironically, the best way to reduce creativity is to reward it. Scholars (Amabile 1979, 1996) and practitioners (Sullivan 1998; Torr 2008) show that extrinsic motivation linked to rewards and evaluation reduces creativity. This occurs because people produce what they think

is desired, like an order taker, so the creative campaign becomes a self-fulfilling request or a commercial venture rather than an original artistic creative idea. True creativity is only manifested when individuals possess intrinsic motivation or a passion to create an artistic expression independent of financial gain. Within an advertising context, it seems reasonable that passion should have a strong impact on the originality of an advertising campaign. The main influence of passion is that it prompts a willingness to work harder on seemingly impossible problems and keep up a difficult pace of original idea generation to eventually hit on a powerful, creative idea (Sasser 2008; Sasser and Koslow 20089). As Gross (1972) notes, idea generation is predominantly a numbers probability game where the more diverse the variety of ideas generated, the more likely an original idea is developed from the massive output. Intrinsic motivation is most powerful in terms of creativity because when extrinsic motivation is applied, such as evaluations or rewards, people behave and produce what is expected, rather than what is truly creative (Amabile 1996). Although the value of passion or intrinsic motivation may be well supported in the literature, a deeper issue is whether the size of this effect depends on support in the working environment. Organizational Support While passionately trying harder at an individual level is important, organizational commitment such as offering support or encouragement for creative ideas has not been shown to be as uniformly beneficial for increasing creativity. For example, Verbeke et al. (2008) only find positive effects for organizational encouragement, but negative effects for workgroup support and supervisory encouragement. This could be due to missing contingent variables, especially since a similar pattern of mixed results is noted in the innovation literature review. Such interactions are common in creativity and are consistent with Sternberg and Lubarts (1996) confluence theories. The notion of supporting creative ideas only works if someone is willing and able to produce the ideas in the first place. The construct defined as a willingness to produce creative ideas exhibits sensitivity to support from those in powerful positions. Therivel (1995) shows that creativity thrives when power is diffuse and contested. Historically, in countries or organizations where no group or person was firmly in political control, creativity thrived because creative people shifted allegiance to find someone to support and defend them, similar to the historical and artistic patronage system. Creative people with innovative ideas seek out support rather than the other way around, in an effort to protect their artistry, integrity, and efficacy. Therivels (1995) insights are especially important since both the creativity and innovation literature streams illustrate that it is very hard to determine the true value of a creative

Fall 2012 7

idea early in its lifespan (e.g., Montoya-Weiss and ODriscoll 2000; Sternberg and Lubart 1996) as it is first seeded. Thus, the role of creating inspirational positive environments is to allow nascent ideas time and space to develop more fully (Sasser 2008). Yet ideas must be planted or rooted in the first place for such support to visibly occur. Offering support to creativity when individuals are not passionate about the work produces either (1) path-of-least-resistance (POLR) styles of thinking, which solve problems in conventional ways, or (2) gaming of the rewards system because such support is mistaken for extrinsic rewards that routinely harm creativity. It has been well documented that creative people take on considerable social risk such that they do need protection and assurance in their environment. As Lau, Li, and Chu (2004) explain, creative people are perceived as disruptive and differentdespite the long-term value of their ideas. They are bohemians, mavericks, and renegades who are held in less social esteem than their rank merits, a precarious and often volatile position. For example, Gino and Ariely (2012) flatly argue that creative people are more dishonest. Scott (1995) notes how creative people are perceived as difficult, hard to manage, and unwilling to follow the typical bureaucratic chain of command, thus introducing more tension to organizations. While being creative allows for a specific position in work-related networks (Perry-Smith and Shalley 2003), there is a social cost of coworker conflict and less work satisfaction (Janssen 2003). Are creative people truly unruly, or are they unfairly pegged as organizational saboteurs? Creative people are driven to climb out on a limb to produce creative work of great value when the worktheir babyis supported and defended (Kover and Goldberg 1995). The following hypothesis is offered: Hypothesis 1: A higher level of agency support enhances the positive influence of passion on advertising creativity. Expertise While expertise is acknowledged as important to creativity since it provides an appropriate foundational base, an excessively high level of expertise may have a negative effect (Weisberg 1999). Although highly specialized knowledge and high levels of technical knowledge are the best predictors of innovation (Damanpour 1991), many creativity scholars place caveats on this relationship. For example, Amabile (1996) notes how expertise, which she terms domain-relevant knowledge, is one of four major factors affecting creativity; the others are creativity-relevant processes, social environment, and intrinsic motivation for the task. Creativity scholars consider expertise to be only one of a number of preconditions for creative ideation, and some find that extremely high levels of expertise inhibit creativity (Kilgour and Koslow 2009; Sasser and Koslow 2008; Sternberg and Lubart 1996).

For example, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) explains that expertise is needed to produce scientific creative breakthroughs, but expertise alone is not critical. A certain minimum level of knowledge appears to be the price of entry into a creative venue, but some other elusive factor switches on the creative energies that fuel revolutionary ideas. In fact, creativity scholars are keenly aware that creative breakthroughs tend to happen earlier in careers when expertise is only at a moderate level (Simonton 1988, 2003). Creativity researchers have shown concern that too much expertise can hinder creativity (Mednick 1962). High expertise often causes people to fixate or develop tunnel vision when approaching problems. It may operate like a quick sort, or quick fix, to find the POLR that produces immediate results to solve the creative problem (Moreau and Dahl 2005; Wiley 1998). Possibly, as expertise evolves, memory skills become compartmentalized or entrenched in such a way that the broader or deeper thinking needed to generate novel ideas becomes more difficult (Guilford 1968). It also seems unlikely that advertising agency talent is subject to the pitfalls of too much expertise as frequently reported in the creativity literature. As Sasser and Koslow (2008) note, this functional fixedness problem could be a concern for client marketing managers, but avoiding the problem of too much expertise is a major reason advertising agencies exist. Sasser and Koslow (20089) explain how advertising agencies function as an institutional skunk works in that they avoid the right side of the inverted U-shaped relationship between expertise and creativity. Most of the time, agencies operate on the left side of this inverted-U-shaped relationship, and, hence, more expertise should lead to more creativity. The value of expertise should be straightforward, but the question is whether this changes in different agencies political environments. Politics Researchers in creativity and innovation often paint positive pictures about the personal dynamics of creators or champions. The enthusiasm displayed by these cheerleaders is typically portrayed without any detrimental components or negative countereffects (e.g., Amabile 1996), with champions often being viewed as heroes unleashing organizational innovation (Markham 1998; Markham and Griffin 1998). However, the advocacy position that champions assume may be viewed as political behavior, potentially spawning positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, politics may derail organizational formalization that is misplaced or wrongheaded. Adler and Borys (1996) suggest that there are two types of formalized bureaucracy, enabling and coercive, and politics may avoid the latter type. In an effort to circumvent the system, politically motivated individuals manipulate the situation, even though they lack the formal authority (Sasser and Koslow

8 The Journal of Advertising

2008). This dynamic alters formalized processes in their favor (Morrill, Zald, and Rao 2003) and overcomes coercive formalization. The negative side, however, is that political games are also used to provide an illusion of legitimacy to ones opponent or to third parties when the situation is really just an exercise of organizational power (Tushman and Nadler 1980). Although using power in an organization is frequently viewed as dirty, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) note that it is essential to running an effective organization, especially when creative ideas are untried and therefore have uncertain outcomes. Innovation champions use political gaming to command needed resources for their pet projects (Markham 1998, 2000), yet these same champions also seem to have no better ability to recognize innovative ideas than anyone else. Although the direct measurable impact of politics on creativity may be difficult to prove, one widely espoused belief is that politics is associated with conflict. Kover and Goldberg (1995) describe negative dynamics of political games creative and account executives use to control creative work. Creatives play political games such as Overwhelm or Antagonistic to protect the creative integrity of their work. Account executives use Enforced Cooperation or Snatching the Work Away to please clients and sell advertising for external job rewards. Such conflicts can be highly disruptive; hence, the presence of politics changes agency organizational dynamics (Sasser and Koslow 2008). When facing a politically volatile situation, the perception that work would not be fairly evaluated may lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and frustration. Thus, highly expert creatives and other agency employees hold back in doing their best work, instead offering just enough to get by, and put their energies into other more productive areas. Less expert agency employees are not as adept as the political veteran creatives at recognizing this phenomenon and scaling back their efforts accordingly to survive politics. Thus, relatively speaking, lessseasoned or less-established creatives are more insecure and they become fearful of risk taking as they walk the fine line between maximizing their skills and satisficing expectations, so they need more organizational support and reassurance. In contrast, highly expert, more confident, or award-winning creatives have learned this game from past experience and assess risk levels, often weighing their options. That is, experts can use their superior skills to produce adequate work to get by with the client, but save their best work for other more intrinsically rewarding or more politically appealing situations. Thus, the presence of politics may suppress the positive influence of expertise. Numerous focus group findings and depth interviews with creative executives have supported this notion. Part of the political learning process of producing award winning creative work is knowing when to fight the battle over creative and also realizing the extreme situation when you just have to

give up defending your creative work and simply start over with something completely new (DShow 2011). The source of politics may be largely irrelevant to the suppression of the expertise effect. Regardless of whether creatives, account executives, or even clients are instigating the game playing, it fuels perceptions of bias and unfairness throughout the organization and has a chilling effect, resulting in disheartened employees, disenfranchised executives, and disillusioned clients. Hypothesis 2: The presence of organizational politics suppresses the positive influence of expertise on advertising creativity. Several other interactions may be considered, but given the sparseness of the literature, there is not enough theory on which to build expectations. For example, it is less clear how passion might be moderated by the presence of politics. Passion may prompt a push forward when expert wisdom calls for a retreat. Alternatively, politics may also sap the energy of passionate individuals every bit as much as experts. On net, no prediction is made regarding how politics may moderate passions influence on creativity. Likewise, no prediction is made on whether agency support for good work can moderate expertise. Using expertise is not like using passionit is more in the rational frame than the affective emotional frame and feeling vulnerable or out on a limb and in need of support. Experts know the work they produce meets objective standards and may not crave or respond to agency support as extensively as others might. Passionate individuals have more doubts, however; they need the reassurance that agency support provides and respond more positively to it. Finally, an argument can be raised that agency support might more strongly enhance creativity in the presence of organizational politics. That is, it seems reasonable to suppose that when politics are running rampant in an organization, organizational support might counter the negative effects of politics, and support may have a stronger influence on creativity when politics runs hot. But again, with only scant literature, it is difficult to make a formal hypothesis in this regard. Method Consistent with other creativity studies (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan 2003; Li et al. 2008; West, Kover, and Caruana 2008), this research was based on questionnaires collected from agency executives across a comprehensive advertising creativity study. The 413 respondents from 22 different advertising agency offices reported on as many as three of their most recent campaigns, for a total sample of 1,188 campaigns. Views were solicited from creative, media, research, account, planners, specialists, and other executives via questionnaires. Personal individual interviews, focus groups, and participant

Fall 2012 9

observation techniques were also employed in discovering digital social media issues, factor constructs, and appropriate industry jargon. Data Collection Positioned as a multitasking opportunity for a refreshing creative therapy break during midday lunch or tea times, surveys were distributed and monitored in person with agency employees under the auspices of human resources, during business hours. The questionnaire length (2530 minutes) fit well with a break period and demonstrated an interest in individual creative work. Depending on timing, various food incentives were provided such as sandwiches, pizza, bagels, donuts, and beverages. Surveys were collected from top ad markets such as New York and Detroit. When major advertising agency cities are chosen for data collection, New York is typically ranked as the top advertising market, while Detroit is usually the third or fourth largest, based on total billings, so these markets are representative of overall spending categories. Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2003, 2006); Kover (1995); Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan (2007); and Stuhlfaut and Yoo (2011) also used these markets previously. The sampling frame targeted the 20 largest agencies present in New York and the 10 largest in Detroit, annually ranked by the publisher of Ad Age and Crains. These agencies comprised more than three-quarters (75%) of the total billings in their respective cities. Three New York agencies did not fit the profile of traditional full-service agencies and were dropped. The remaining 27 were targeted for participation, with 12 New York agencies agreeing to participate and all 10 Detroit agencies complying. Only one New York agency actually declined to participate, while four others had client deadlines and time obstacles during fieldwork. These agencies handle a broad spectrum of diversified accounts and most were part of large networks and worldwide public holding companies, although a few were privately or only partially held. Sample Characteristics The sample is demographically representative of the advertising industry. The rank of respondents ranged from top managers (e.g., 4 CEOs and 27 executive vice presidents and managing directors) to more operationally oriented employees (e.g., 86 managers and 90 executives). Just over half were male (54%), with a modal age of 25 to 34 years (46.1%), and the majority were from New York (59.1%). Most were well educated, with 73.3% holding bachelors degrees as their highest degree and 15.9% holding a graduate degree as their highest degree. About 40.7% were from the creative department, 37.5% were from account, and 10.9% were from media, with the rest from other parts of the agency. Respondents reported

significant experience in consumer package goods (51.8%), automotive (39.7%), and retail (39.2%) sectors of advertising commensurate with leading advertising spending categories noted below. Total U.S. advertising spending percentages for 2009 (Advertising Age 2009) were 19.8% in package goods, 11.6% in automotive, and 12.7% in retail. The corresponding sample percentages were 30.3% of the campaigns from package good categories, 17.5% in automotive, and 9.6% in retail. Average annual media billings for each client were approximately $55 million. Results Measures To test the hypotheses, four independent constructs were measured and two others will be used to compute the creativity scale. Based on qualitative interviews from another phase of this research, a questionnaire was designed incorporating the words and phrases used by advertising agency employees in focus groups and interviews, which was then pilot tested. The instrument was then refined again in a second round of pretesting. Revisions were made to incorporate social media. Independent Variables To measure the four independent constructs, 13 items were used. A seven-point Likert scale format extending from strongly disagree (3) to strongly agree (+3) was used. The neutral midpoint was labeled neither agree nor disagree(0). The items are grouped by construct in Table1, with factor loadings. With 61% of the variance explained, the model has acceptable fit. Seven major loadings have an absolute value greater than .7, and the remaining six are above .6. All items load on expected factors. To define the four constructs, the items relating to each factor were summed. Table 2 lists means and standard deviations, along with summaries for the dependent variables. Approach to Measuring Creativity Most scholars agree that creativity is multifaceted (Ang, Lee, and Leong 2007; Mumford and Gustafson 1988; Smith et al. 2007), so that traditional single-faceted measurement logic is not preferred. To best develop a creativity scale, the items used should not load on a single factor. Instead, this research defines creativity as outputs that are both original and appropriate, measured with two separate factors (Runco and Charles 1993). To measure creativity, the interaction of two single scales, originality and strategy, is used in this study. The approach is called derived measurement. It defines creativity using several

10 The Journal of Advertising Table 1 Factor Loadings Matrix for Independent Variables
Items Our organizational structure screened out low-quality ideas. Agency culture was such that it supported the creatives in doing their best work. The unstated rule for this account was that management defends good creative work. The organizational processes of this account helped us develop better advertising. There were a lot of agency politics played on this account. The agency decisions made on this account were nonpolitical. On this account, political gamesmanship was rampant. The creatives who worked on this account knew the business. The creatives on this account understood how the target market thought. The people on this account were experts at what they were doing. The product/service offered a number of creative directions. Designing advertising for this product/service was fun. Working with this product/service was interesting. Eigenvalues Note: Principal component factor analysis with quartermax rotation was used. Support .729 .648 .689 .600 .146 .203 .161 .099 .096 .337 .055 .366 .225 2.19 Politics .047 .223 .156 .155 .830 .742 .818 .011 .023 .106 .065 .174 .103 2.07 Expertise .107 .037 .041 .282 .006 .039 .079 .855 .767 .617 .019 .224 .233 1.91 Passion .135 .311 .231 .174 .003 .110 .021 .016 .193 .157 .793 .631 .687 1.77

Table 2 Summaries of Independent Measures and Dependent Primary Scales (Prior to Centering and Scaling)
Construct Support Politics Passion Expertise Originality Strategy Mean 2.777 .349 3.679 4.096 2.945 5.862 Items 4 3 3 3 3 3 SD 4.946 4.565 3.710 3.421 4.459 2.956 Minimum 12 9 9 7 9 9 Maximum 12 9 9 9 9 9 Cronbachs .693 .761 .6672 .689 .895 .766

primary scales and then combines scales (Roberts 1979). Plucker and Renzulli (1999) elaborate on major derived measures and primary scales used in creativity research, but note that a challenge is combining primary scales into appropriate derived measures. Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2003) detail a derived measurement approach to advertising creativity using combinations of primary scales. Following this lead, creativitys derived measure draws on the interaction of originality and strategy with equal weights, which is deemed normative creativity. Primary Scales for Advertising Creativity and the Creativity Index Originality and strategy were measured similarly to Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2003, 2006) and Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan (2007). Each scale used three items, and all items use the same verbal stem: Compared to other advertisements-

campaigns, this advertisement-campaign was... Six different phrases followed, which are listed in Table 3, along with factor loadings. The factor model explained 76.7% of the variance. The intended loadings fit, and five of the major loadings were above .8; all were above .7. Factors were moderately correlated, with Pearsons r=.39 (p<.0001). Primary scales for originality and strategy have equal impacts on creativity and are centered and scaled before being combined. For each respondent, i, creativity is defined as: Creativity Index i = + Strategy i xStrategy SDStrategy

Originality i x Originality SDOriginality

Strategy i xStrategy Originality i x Originality + . SDOriginality SDStrategy

Fall 2012 11

Assessing Potential Common Methods Variance Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommends several ways to assess and control for possible common methods variance and this research uses two recommended methods. First, this research assesses the degree of common methods bias, if present, using a test dubbed the single-method-factor approach (see Podsakoff et al. 2003, p.896, table5, panel3A). This was an additional model, which was fit in AMOS to allow all one-way relationships between latent constructs and all measurement submodels. Next, an additional factor for common methods was introduced relating to all the items. Inclusion of the methods factor had little effect on the parameters, with no change in the pattern of statistical significance. If common methods variance occurred, then all parameters linking the common methods factor to the items would be observed, but this did not happen. The common methods factor did not load significantly on any of the items. Thus, it was not supported that common methods bias should be a major concern. Podsakoff et al. (2003) also recommended using another single-method-factor approach when the source of methods variance can be identified. In this case, common rater effects can be controlled for by using a nominal variable to estimate a separate parameter for each respondent (see Podsakoff et al. 2003, p.896, table5, panel3B). In most survey research, each respondent rates a single object or situation, which becomes the unit of analysis. Therefore, controlling for common rater effects is often not possible due to degrees of freedom limitations. In this study, however, each respondent rated three campaigns providing sufficient degrees of freedom. The measurement concern with common rater effects is that respondents may artificially inflate responses because of yea-saying biases, social desirability biases, and so forth, but estimating a mean for each individual removes the potential effect. If a respondent artificially inflates all of his or her responses, this analysis estimates a high mean for the respondent, and thus conditions it out. Thus, the parameters of interest reflect the effects within respondents as opposed to among respondents. The model was also run without adjustment for common rater bias and there was no difference in the pattern of results. Hence, common methods bias potential was tested per acceptable protocols, finding no support for any variance due to common methods bias. Findings The dependent variable of normative creativity was predicted using generalized linear model (GLM). Each of the four factorspassion, expertise, politics, and supportwere initially entered into the model, plus all their two-, three-, and four-way interactions. Then, nonsignificant or small interactions were backward deleted.1 In the final model, R2 is 66.5% and includes

Table 3 Factor Model of Originality and Strategy

Compared with other advertisements, this advertisement/campaign was... ... original ... unexpected ... different ... on strategy ... a good fit with the clients strategy ... built on good strategy Eigenvalues (ignoring other factors)

Originality .852 .929 .937 .055 .038 .122 2.805

Strategy .077 .036 .024 .892 .888 .713 2.464

three two-way interactions. Prior to analysis, all measures were centered and scaled. Table 4 lists the key outputs. Figures 13 show plots of the expected values of creativity, given low and high passion, expertise, politics, and support. These were estimated as continuous variables, and the plots presenting low and high levels are shown. Aiken and West (1991) recommend defining the low level of a variable as one standard deviation below the mean, while the high level is one standard deviation above. This is recommended instead of the more typical, but technically inappropriate, dichotomizing of continuous variables (see Fitzsimons 2008). To interpret the plots, their slopes are compared to determine whether they are different (see Aiken and West 1991). A steeper slope for one condition means a stronger influence for that condition. H1 suggests that passion has an interaction with support in predicting creativity, and Figure 1 shows the effect of passion on creativity when agency support is high or low. The slope of the high support line is .475, which is significantly different from zero (t =9.19), while the slope of the low support line is .243, which is also significantly different from zero (t =3.235). The difference in slopes between the high- and low-support conditions is statistically significant (p<.0001) and shows that when there is support for creativity, the influence of passion on creativity almost doubles. As is clear from Figure1 as well, the creativity in the high-passion situations is distinctly above the low-passion conditions, so there is a one-way effect of passion (p >.0001). These results support both H1 and confirm the prior findings. In terms of statistical power, partial h2 for passion as a main effect is .107, or between a small- and medium-effect size as termed by Aiken and West (1991). For the main effect of support, partial h2=.036, or just above a small effect. The interactions partial h2 is .02, again a small effect by itself. However, all three effects together make for a medium-size effect. H2 argues that expertise in the clients business is involved with an interaction with politics. As seen in Figure2, if politics

12 The Journal of Advertising Table 4 Generalized Linear Model (GLM) Results Predicting Normative Creativity (Standardized Coefficients)
Degrees of freedom Intercept ID Passion Expertise Support Politics Passionsupport Expertisepolitics Supportpolitics R2 412 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type III sums of squares 428.106 47.451 1.218 14.018 .511 8.147 3.733 2.007 Parameters .395 * .359 .068 .273 .043 .116 .095 .074 .665 p-value <.0001 <.0001 .126 <.0001 .321 <.0001 .007 .049

* Four hundred twelve parameters or individual means were estimated, averaging .342 with a standard deviation of .625 and ranging from 2.078 to 2.663. The distribution closely followed a normal distribution.

Figure 1 Effect of Passion on Normative Creativity at High and Low Levels of Agency Support

are low, expertise has a positive influence on creativity and the slope is .164, which is significantly different from zero (t=2.766). However, if politics are high, the slope, at .027, is not significantly different from zero (t=.416). Therefore, their slopes are different (p = .007), and H2 is supported.

However, there is no statistically significant one-way effect of expertise, which does not support the prior literature. Also in Figure 2, the line for high politics is fairly highhigher than might be expectedbut in plotting interactions at plus or minus one standard deviation, Aiken and West (1991) cau-

Fall 2012 13

Figure 2 Effect of Expertise on Normative Creativity at High and Low Levels of Politics

tion against overinterpreting the mean levels of these interactions and focus more on the comparison of slopes. Partial h2 for expertise, politics, and the interaction are .003, .001, and .009all small effects. There was also an interaction between politics and support for creativity (shown in Figure3), which was not hypothesized. Both the high- and low-political situations have positive slopes (.347 and .199, respectively), which are also both different from zero (t = values of 5.92 and 3.39, respectively). The slope showing supports influence on creativity under the high politics condition is steeper than the low-politics condition at a conventional level of significance. Therefore, when politics are rampant, organizational support has a stronger influence on creativity. Although Figure 3 suggests that the high-politics/ high-support situation is well above the low-politics/highsupport situation, this difference is not significant. In this case, one can only conclude with confidence that the slopes are different. The sizes of the effects are all small, with the partial h2 at .034, .001, and .005, respectively. The importance of including a parameter for each individual respondent is validated by the partial h2 for individuals, which

is .518, or a large effect. Overall, effect sizes go in order from large to small: first, the individual-level differences; second, the set of passion and support variables; and, third, the expertise and politics variables. Discussion Passion changes everything. Of the four constructs studied, passion increases creativity most consistently and drives the strongest effect after individual differences. Organizational support for creative ideas also enhances this effect to a lesser degree. Passion is endemic for creative agencies and stifling passion undermines both creativity and success. Moreover, supporting such passion can lead to even more creativity. Although expertise has been identified in the innovation literature as having the strongest effect among the many factors studied, this does not hold true in the advertising creativity field. Expertise may actually be linked to negative effects on creativity, possibly due to the affective nature of the business. Creative experts are quite adept at withholding their rare creative knowledge. This situation may occur during greater

14 The Journal of Advertising

Figure 3 Effect of Agency Support on Normative Creativity at High and Low Levels of Politics

political duress, when expertise is used as a resource, tool, gauge, or ammunition in turf wars. There were two important surprises in the data. First, given the widespread assumption that politics should yield a net negative influence, then it would be expected that the high politics line in Figure 2 would be at least .25 units lower. Although a one-way effect of politics was not significant, future research may consider whether politics may still play an enabling role when expertise is low. Second, in politicized situations, the value of support was greater. This might be because agency support offsets the harmful effects of politics and provides a safety net. Future research needs to better understand organizational politics, particularly the source, whether client or agency driven. Agencies and clients may directly control only two of the four factors in the dynamic creativity framework: politics and agency support (Sasser and Koslow 2008). Maintaining visible management support and resources devoted to creativity can make a difference. Minimizing political strife that dampens expertise is also a manageable goal.

This studys operationalization of expertise focused on understanding the target market and business rather than specific creative skills because the focus was on what Amabile (1996) termed domain knowledge rather than creativity-relevant skills. Given the size of individual-level effects, future research warrants an expanded view of various types of expertise. Agency employees individual creative thinking skills should be a fruitful direction of scholarly inquiry. Although the effect sizes for the interactions are small, they are significantand it is not uncommon that important interactions have small effect sizes. Yet one possibility holding back effect sizes may be that reliabilities were just under the traditional .7 cutoff for three constructs (although if common rater effects are controlled for, only two do not meet the traditional cutoff). Aiken and West (1991) discuss how measurement error reduces effect sizes, so the low reliabilities are a limitation. Future work needs to develop better, more reliable scales. Because a backward elimination approach was used, there is always a danger of finding spurious results; this is especially so for interactions at the borderline level of sig-

Fall 2012 15

nificance and small effect size, such as the politicssupport interaction. Future research needs to confirm this interaction, but this also reinforces the need to understand organizational politics more fully. Podsakoff et al. (2003) also commented on how common method variance in variables can deflate observed relationships, especially when relationships are strong already. Two of the main tests for common method bias supported the fact that it was not a major concern for the study. There was minor evidence that method variance had a very slight effect on one measure of passion and may have led to underestimation of the observed relationships. However, one framing limitation is that the data reflects the perspective of only agency personnel, with the exception of those who had previously worked on the client side as well. Given the ability to survey matched pairs of client and agency campaigns, a different pattern may have emerged. Marketer attitudes and perspectives toward creativity and risk need to be further investigated because studies do indicate that client and agency definitions of creativity sometimes differ (see West and Berthon 1997; West and Paliwoda 1996). Another potential issue concerns the sample campaign base. Since campaign data was collected in New York and Detroit, the sample reflects a higher percentage of package goods and automotive, and a lower percentage of retail campaigns. Previous research has shown that retail campaigns may be just as creative as other categories, but the category bias may be a concern. It might be that the low percentage of retail campaigns suggests that retailers do their own internal development or that the studied campaigns are more creative than average. Nevertheless, there was a proportionately sizeable percentage of retail campaigns represented for correct stratification. Marketers may be misguided if they choose agencies based on category expertise. The paradox is that if marketers only choose agencies on the basis of knowledge of the business, they will not receive fresh outside the box thinking. Clients should be able to share their knowledge with their agency, not rely on agencies to be the experts covering for new brand managers. Using only expertise for agency selection limits potential and blocks complementary skills. Instead, marketers should choose agencies based on the possibility of passion for the clients business, as some automakers have seemingly chosen to do lately (D Show 2011). A final implication for clientagency relationships is that to stifle the passion underlying creativity is to suffocate the sparks and the edginess that truly drives innovation, ideation, risk taking, and success. An agency full of passionate people should be dynamic, organic, and challenging to manage, especially if the agency has such highly talented, highly creative, and highly motivated people. Passion may equal profit if properly applied, but if poorly managed, it could equal lost potential, if employees become intrinsically demotivated; this should be

a concern to clients and agencies. Kover and Goldberg (1995) explore the chaotic, political, and tumultuous environment within agencies, as they paint the portrait of a passionate and creative agency that inspires great client work. Agencies produce highly creative ideas because of their passion for big ideas! Creativity is a rewardingly magical realm of passiona mercurial and mysterious placesometimes unfamiliar, but always the wise choice of bold change agents. Notes
1. Using a backward deletion rule of p<.05, the four-way and two three-way interactions were dropped, but two three-way interactions were shown to be significant. However, the effect sizes were very small for these three-way interactions. Following Neter, Wasserman, and Kutners (1985) recommendations, very small effect sizes for three-way interactions were also deleted despite being statistically significant. Although the model that included the two three-way interactions had a fractionally (.0044) higher R2 than the model that had only three two-way interactions, the formers interpretation of slopes provided little more information than the more parsimonious model. 2. When individual differences (e.g., common rater effects) are controlled for, this coefficient rises to .722 (see Podsakoff et al.s 2003 study, p.896, table5, panel3B). Alternatively, if the item The product/service offered a number of creative directions is dropped, Cronbachs rises to .694. When this item is dropped, the R2 drops to .651, but the pattern of results does not change. Because the approach to factor analysis was confirmatory, the decision was made to retain the item despite its challenges.

References
Adler, Paul S., and Bryan Borys (1996), Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (March), 6189. Advertising Age (2009), U.S. Measured Ad Spend by Category, 80 (43), 16. Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Amabile, Teresa M. (1979), Effects of External Evaluation on Artistic Creativity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (2), 221233. (1988a), A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations, in Research in Organizational Behavior, vol.10, L. L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier, 123168. (1988b), From Individual Creativity to Organizational Innovation, in Innovation: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, Kjell Gronhaug and Geir Kaufman, eds., Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 139166. (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. , Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron (1996), Assessing the Work Environment

16 The Journal of Advertising

for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 11541184. Ang, Swee Hoon, Yih Hwai Lee, and Siew Meng Leong (2007), The Ad Creativity Cube: Conceptualization and Initial Validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (2), 220232. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: HarperCollins. Damanpour, Fariborz (1991), Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555590. The D Show (2011), The Fifth Annual Creative Awards Ceremony, Adcraft Club of Detroits D Creative Council of the American Advertising Federation, Detroit, November30, Personal Winner Interview, 190. Gino, Francesca, and Dan Ariely (2012), The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (3), 445459. Gross, Irwin (1972), The Creative Aspects of Advertising, Sloan Management Review, 14 (1), 83109. Guilford, Joy P. (1968), Intelligence, Creativity and Their Educational Implications, San Diego: Robert R. Knapp. Fitzsimons, Gavin J. (2008), Death to Dichotomizing, Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 58. Janssen, Onne (2003), Innovative Behavior and Job Involvement at the Price of Conflict and Less Satisfactory Relations with Co-Workers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76 (September), 347364. Kasof, Joseph (1995), Explaining Creativity: The Attributional Perspective, Journal of Creativity Research, 8 (4), 311366. Kilgour, Mark, and Scott Koslow (2009), Why and How Do Creative Thinking Techniques Work? Trading Off Originality and Appropriateness to Make More Creative Advertising, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 298309. Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2003), What Is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in Advertising Agencies, Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (1), 96110. , , and (2006), Do Marketers Get the Advertising They Need or the Advertising They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients Influence Creativity, Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 85105. Kover, Arthur J. (1995), Copywriters Implicit Theories of Communication: An Exploration, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (March), 596611. , and Stephen M. Goldberg (1995), The Games Copywriters Play: Conflict, Quasi-Control, a New Proposal, Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (November/December), 5261. Lau, Sing, Chun Sau Li, and Dennis Chu (2004), Perceived Creativity: Its Relationship to Social Status and Self-Concept Among Chinese High Ability Children, Creativity Research Journal, 16 (1), 5968. Li, Hairong, Wenyu Dou, Guangping Wang, and Nan Zhou (2008), The Effect of Agency Creativity on Campaign

Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Market Conditions, Journal of Advertising, 37 (Winter), 115126. Markham, Stephen K. (1998), A Longitudinal Examination of How Champions Influence Others to Support Their Projects, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (6), 490504. (2000), Corporate Championing and Antagonism as Forms of Political Behavior: An R&D Perspective, Organization Science, 11 (4), 429447. , and Abbie Griffin (1998), The Breakfast of Champions: Associations Between Champions and Product Development Environments, Practices and Performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (5), 436454. Mednick, S. A. (1962), The Associative Basis of the Creative Process, Psychological Review, 69 (May), 220232. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi, and Tony M. ODriscoll (2000), From Experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (2), 143161. Moreau, C. Page, and Darren W. Dahl (2005), Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumer Creativity, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 1322. Morrill, Calvin, Mayer N. Zald, and Hayagreeva Rao (2003), Covert Political Conflict in Organizations: Challenges from Below, Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 391415. Mumford, Michael D., and Sigrid B. Gustafson (1988), Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (1), 2743. Neter, John, William Wasserman, and Michael H. Kutner (1985), Applied Linear Statistical Models, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Nyilasy, Gergely, and Leonard N. Reid (2009), Agency Practitioner Theories of How Advertising Works, Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 8196. Perry-Smith, Jill E., and Christina E. Shalley (2003), The Social Side of Creativity: A Static and Dynamic Social Network Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 28 (1), 89106. Plucker, Jonathan A., and Joseph S. Renzulli (1999), Psychometric Studies of Creativity, in Handbook of Creativity, Robert J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3561. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879903. Roberts, Fred S. (1979), Measurement Theory, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Runco, Mark A., and Robyn E. Charles (1993), Judgments of Originality and Appropriateness as Predictors of Creativity, Personality and Individual Differences, 15 (5), 537546. Salancik, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1977), Who Gets PowerAnd How They Hold It: A Strategic-Contingency Model of Power, Organizational Dynamics, 5 (3), 321. Sasser, Sheila L. (2008), Creating Passion to Engage Versus Enrage Consumer Co-creators with Agency Co-conspirators:

Fall 2012 17

Unleashing Creativity, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (3), 183186. , and Scott Koslow (2008), The Creative Advertising Development Process: Is Organizational Politics a Recipe for Disaster or a Dysfunctional Antidote? in New Trends in Advertising Research, Francisco Costa Pereira, Jorge Verissimo, and Peter C. Neijens, eds., Lisbon: Silabo, 103119. , and (20089), Desperately Seeking Advertising Creativity: Engaging an Imaginative 3Ps Research Agenda, Journal of Advertising, 37 (4), 519. , , and Edward A. Riordan (2007), Creative and Interactive Media Use by Agencies Engaging an IMC Media Palette for Implementing Advertising Campaigns, Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (September), 237256. Scott, Randall H. (1995), Creative Employees: A Challenge to Managers, Journal of Creative Behavior, 29 (1), 6471. Simonton, Dean Keith (1988), Age and Outstanding Achievement: What Do We Know After a Century of Research? Psychological Bulletin, 104 (2), 251267. (2003), Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person and Process Perspective, Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 475494. Smith, Robert E., Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz, and William K. Darley (2007), Modelling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising, Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819833. Sternberg, Robert J., and Todd I. Lubart (1996), Investing in Creativity, American Psychologist, 51 (7), 677688. Stuhlfaut, Mark W., and Chan Yun Yoo (2011), A Tool for Evaluating Advertising Concepts: Desirable Characteristics as Viewed by Creative Practitioners, Journal of Marketing Communications (February), 117. Sullivan, Luke (1998), Hey, Whipple, Squeeze This! A Guide to Creating Great Ads, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Therivel, William A. (1995), Long-Term Effect of Power on Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 8 (2), 173192.

Torr, Gordon (2008), Managing Creative People: Lessons in Leadership for the Ideas Economy, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley& Sons. Tushman, Michael L., and David A. Nadler (1980), Implications of Political Model of Organization, in Resource Book in Macro-Organizational Behavior, R. H. Miles, ed., Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear, 177190. Verbeke, Willem, Philip Hans Franses, Nienke Ruyten, and Arthur Leblanc (2008), Finding the KEYS to Creativity in Ad Agencies: Using Climate, Dispersion and Size to Examine Award Performance, Journal of Advertising, 37 (Winter), 127137. Weisberg, R.W.(1999), Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories, in Handbook of Creativity, Robert J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226250. West, Douglas, and Pierre Berthon (1997), Antecedents of RiskTaking Behavior by Advertisers: Empirical Evidence and Management Implications, Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (September/October), 2740. , and Stanley J. Paliwoda (1996), Advertising ClientAgency Relationships: The Decision-Making Structure of Clients, European Journal of Marketing, 30 (8), 2239. , Arthur J. Kover, and Albert Caruana (2008), Practitioner and Customer Views of Advertising Creativity: Same Concept, Different Meaning? Journal of Advertising, 37 (Winter), 3747. Wiley, Jennifer (1998), Expertise as Mental Set: The Effect of Domain Knowledge in Creative Problem Solving, Memory and Cognition, 26 (4), 716730. Williams, Wendy M., and Lana T. Yang (1999), Organizational Creativity, in Handbook of Creativity, Robert J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373391. Young, James Webb (2003), A Technique for Producing Ideas, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.