Summary Employee creativity is critical for an organization's innovativeness and survival in today's competitive business environment. As such, scholars have devoted significant attention to the predictors of employee creativity, seeking to understand how to best increase employees' creative output. However, employee creativity may not always translate into organizational innovation and performance. In fact, employee creativity may result in various outcomes for creative individuals, their coworkers, teams, and organizations. While there have been several integrative reviews on the antecedents of creativity, an in‐depth review of the outcomes of creativity is still needed to gain a holistic understanding of the benefits and costs of employee creativity and identify fruitful areas for future research. Thus, we aim to provide a comprehensive multilevel examination of the theories, methods, and creativity‐related constructs used to examine the outcomes of creativity. We also provide several theoretical and empirical opportunities for future research. This review may provide managers with knowledge of the pros and cons of employee creativity, enabling them to make informed decisions on how to better manage employee creativity.

Research on knowledge hiding has largely focused on its antecedents while overlooking its consequences. Drawing on moral cleansing theory, we adopt a “perpetrator-centric view” and posit that employees who engage in playing dumb and evasive hiding–two specific knowledge hiding behaviors that involve deception–will subsequently perform more organizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (OCB-I) because they perceive a loss of moral credits following their moral transgression. Further, we propose that the indirect effects are contingent on perpetrators’ moral identity internalization. We tested our hypotheses using a time-lagged research design with a sample of 362 respondents from a large pharmaceutical group company. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that employees who engaged in playing dumb and evasive hiding subsequently exhibited more OCB-I as they perceived a loss of moral credits, whereas employees who engaged in rationalized hiding did not. In addition, the positive relationships between playing dumb and evasive hiding with perceived loss of moral credits were stronger when perpetrators had high moral identity internalization, as were the indirect effects of playing dumb and evasive hiding on OCB-I via perceived loss of moral credits. Our research contributes to the understanding of when and how engaging in knowledge hiding affects perpetrators and their compensatory behaviors toward coworkers.

Creativity, the generation of novel and useful ideas, drives organizational innovation and competitiveness (Amabile, 1988). However, the recognition of creativity is difficult, and individuals often possess their own evaluation criteria and heuristics that influence their judgements of creativity (Berg, 2019; Zhou et al., 2019). This has important implications for managers and organizations as successful creativity evaluation is required for efficient resource allocation and collaboration to drive organizational innovation. In recent years, scholars have begun examining the factors that facilitate or hinder the creative evaluation process (e.g., Berg, 2019; Proudfoot & Fath, 2021). Individuals often have their own criteria on what is considered creative. These criteria are influenced by a variety of factors ranging from the individual’s momentary state to more enduring personal characteristics. Papers in this symposium explore a wide range of factors such as entrepreneurs’ gender and entrepreneurial framing, evaluators’ political ideologies, and affective states that influence how individuals perceive and recognize creativity. They not only broaden the horizon of creativity evaluation literature but also bridge the literature with other important research topics such as entrepreneurship, social politics, gender, and affect. Furthermore, studies included in this submission leveraged diverse methods and data sources such as machine learning, secondary data, and experiments. They thus illuminate novel approaches to study creativity evaluation and show great potential in this research area. In its third year running since the 81st Academy of Management Annual Meeting in 2021, this symposium facilitates advancement of future directions in this nascent research stream and provide important managerial insights on ways to manage biases in evaluating employee creativity. When Creativity Leads Him to be More Successful: The Interaction between Gender and Entrepreneuri Author: Qing Gong; Boise State U. Author: Catherine Paek; Boise State U. Blue Creativity vs. Red Creativity: The Value-laden Nature of Creativity Evaluation Author: Shiyu Yang; Texas A&M International U. Author: Jeffrey Loewenstein; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The Influence of Managers’ Affective States on Creativity Endorsement Author: Rebekah SungEun Hong; U. of Maryland, College Park Author: Vijaya Venkataramani; U. of Maryland Author: Myeong-gu Seo; U. of Maryland Overvaluing “A-ha!”: The Experience of Insight Shapes Creativity Judgments Author: Brian J. Lucas; Cornell U. Author: Wayne Johnson; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Exploring Experts’ Approaches to Creativity Evaluation Author: Yingyue Luan; Cambridge Judge Business School Author: YeunJoon Kim; U. of Cambridge

In this article, I integrate Affective Events Theory with the approach-avoidance framework to develop a unifying theoretical model that interconnects experienced, witnessed, and instigated incivility. Incidents of workplace incivility are conceptualized as affective events that elicit different discrete emotions (anger, guilt, fear/anxiety, and sadness) for each individual – the target, the observer, and the instigator. These discrete emotions, in turn, lead to the individual’s approach and avoidance-oriented behaviors in response to the uncivil event. Next, I propose that different cognitive coping strategies can buffer or amplify the impact of emotions on those behaviors. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model and propose future research directions.