Content uploaded by Nancy Bouranta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nancy Bouranta on Dec 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
On the relationship between individual creativity and time
management
Leonidas A. Zampetakisa,∗, Nancy Bourantab,1, Vassilis S. Moustakisa,c,2
aTechnical University of Crete, Department of Production Engineering and Management, Management Systems Laboratory, University Campus, Chania,
Crete 73100, Greece
bUniversity of Piraeus, Department of Business Administration, 80, Karaoli and Dimitriou Street, Piraeus 185 34, Greece
cFoundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Institute of Computer Science, Science and Technology Park of Crete, Heraklion 71110, Greece
article info
Article history:
Received 30 July 2009
Received in revised form 8 December 2009
Accepted 8 December 2009
Available online 14 December 2009
Keywords:
Creativity
Time management
Disorganization
Tenacity
abstract
The article investigates the relationship between time management behaviours and atti-
tudes with measures of creativity, as assessed by self-rated creativity and a measure of
creative personality. Additionally, total creativity is examined, as the sum of the two creativ-
ity constructs when z-scored. Using data from a survey of 186 participants, results suggest
that creativity is positively related to daily planning behaviour, confidence on long-range
planning, perceived control of time and tenacity and negatively related to preference for
disorganization. These results have theoretical implications for understanding how cre-
ativity relates to time management. Implications of the results are considered and future
research directions identified.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In today’s rapidly changing environment and expanding global competition there is a continuing and ever-growing
recognition on creativity and the management of time. Creativity is considered as a key to personal and organizational social
prosperity; creativity signifies the production of novel and useful ideas, and marks the starting point for innovation and
entrepreneurship (Amabile, 1996; Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2006). Time, on the other hand, represents a commodity that
needs to be efficiently managed, not to mention that, more often than not, effective time management is a key indicator of
organizational competitive edge (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2007).
Early research on creativity has demonstrated that time is an important resource (Wallas, 1926). Time for instance, is
important for incubation; individuals should be given sufficient time if they are expected to do creative work (Runco, 2007).
According to Mednick (1962), original ideas tend to be remote and are usually found far away from the original problem or
initial idea. This remoteness requires time; it takes time to move from idea to idea to idea, and to find the remote associate.
Although time has been frequently used as a variable or as an implied dimension in creativity research, no empirical studies
to date have been undertaken to integrate knowledge about the relation of time management with creativity. Empirical
evidence on the relationship between creativity and time has been limited basically to the effects of time pressure to creative
∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +0030 28210 37323, fax: +0030 28210 69410.
E-mail addresses: lzabetak@dpem.tuc.gr (L.A. Zampetakis), bouranta@unipi.gr (N. Bouranta), moustaki@dpem.tuc.gr,moustaki@csi.forth.gr
(V.S. Moustakis).
1Tel.: +30 210 4142 213; fax: +30 3210 4142 416.
2Tel.: +30 28210 37251/391693; fax: +30 2821 69410/28210 391601.
1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.12.001
24 L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
outcomes in organizations (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Amabile, Mueller, Simpson, Hadley, Kramer, &
Fleming, 2002). Researchers have paid scant attention to the relationship between individual creativity and individual time
management practices. Considering the importance of creativity and time management, the gap in research and literature
on the relationship between individual creativity and time management practices forms a notable deficiency.
To address the aforementioned gap, the purpose of this exploratory study was to examine two different measures of
creativity; the Creative Personality Scale (CPS: Gough, 1979) and a measure of self-rated creativity adapted from Zhou
and George (2001), in relation to time management behaviours (daily planning and confidence on long-range planning)
and attitudes (perceive control of time, tenacity and preference for disorganization). The study contributes to theory and
research in that it is the first study that develops and empirically examines a framework for the relationship between time
management practices and attitudes and creativity.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: First, we review previous literature on individual creativity and time
management and set out the objectives of the study. Next, we report the results from a cross-sectional study designed to
test our model using a sample of 186 randomly selected business, engineering and science students. The paper ends with a
discussion of the implications, the limitations and future research.
2. Theoretical background and literature review
2.1. On the concept of the individual creativity
There is a consensus in the literature that the phenomenon termed individual creativity is a highly complex one and
the measurement of creativity has been a persistent source of debate and critique (Feist, 1998; Runco, 2007). Creativity can
be conceived as a product, person, press or process (Amabile, 1996; Runco, 2007) or as the interaction among “aptitude,
process, and environment” (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004).
According to Eysenck (1995), creativity is conceived as a latent trait underlying creative behaviour. Oldham and Cummings
(1996) demonstrated that an individual is likely to have high creative output if she has the personality traits of a creative
person. One limitation however, with the research on personality and creativity is that it is not domain specific but rather
covers individuals in general. Recent studies however, suggest the domain-specificity of personality variables with regards
to creativity (e.g. Baer, 1998). Feist (1998) for instance, argued that, although personality dispositions do regularly and
predictably relate to creative achievement in art and science, there appears to be temporal stability of these distinguishing
personality dimensions of creative people; creative artists and creative scientists do not completely share the same unique
personality profiles. One of the most widely used constructs of the creative personality (Hocevar, 1981; Oldham & Cummings,
1996), is Gough’s Creative Personality Scale (CPS; Gough, 1979) for the Adjective Check List. CPS assesses aspects of the
creative personality that have been demonstrated to relate to rated creativity (Gough, 1979).
Additionally, creativity can be considered as the production of ideas, products, or procedures that are (a) novel and (b)
potentially useful or practical (Amabile, 1996; Zhou & George, 2001). This approach is product oriented and focuses on
the extent to which outcomes are creative. Several researchers have proposed that self-rated creativity provides a valid
approximation of individual creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2008; Zampetakis, 2008). This argument is in line with evidence
that creative people possess insight into or awareness of their own creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2008). It is plausible that
individuals should be able to recognize whether they are able to produce novel and useful ideas or products (i.e. their own
creativity), to a certain degree. Zhou and George (2001) introduced a self-rated measure in line with the product oriented
approach to creativity.
In the present study we use both the CPS and Zhou and George’s constructs to assess individual creativity. Furthermore
the sum of the two measures (when z-scored) was used as the total individual creativity.
2.2. On the concept of time management
Broadly speaking, time management refers to activities that imply an effective use of time that is deemed to facilitate pro-
ductivity and alleviate stress. A common feature among the conceptualizations of time management is “planning behaviour”
(Claessens et al., 2007). Planning behaviour refers to decisions about which tasks to perform, prioritization of tasks and effec-
tively management of possible distractions (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2004, 2007). Time management, as planning
behaviour, can be considered a particular way of goal setting. Goals may increase attention and effort (i.e. motivation) by
providing clear targets toward which individuals can direct their energies (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Britton and Tesser (1991) proposed that engaging in time management behaviours may be viewed as an individual
difference in planning behaviour skills such as, short-range planning and preference for long-range planning. Short-range
planning refers to time management activities within a daily or weekly timeframe. Preference for long-range planning refers
to having long-range goals and having well-organized work habits. Macan (1994), propose that effective use of time results
from three types of behaviours, namely: (1) setting goals and priorities; (2) mechanics of time management (i.e. making
lists); and (3) preference for organization.
In addition to the aforementioned behavioural aspects of time management, both Britton and Tesser (1991) and Macan
(1994) proposed that time management encompasses individual’s perceptions and attitudes about time: “perceived control
of time” and “time attitudes”, respectively. Perceived control of time reflects the extent to which one believes he or she
L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32 25
can effect how time is spent and is positively related to time management behaviours (Claessens et al., 2004). Britton and
Tesser’s (1991) time attitudes factor is similar to Macan’s construct of perceived control of time and propose that such
attitudes reflect a sense of self-efficacy.
Usunier and Valette-Florence (2007) argue that there are also individual differences concerning motivational aspects of
time that is, how individuals cope with time as an external constrained economic resource. Such a motivational aspect of
time is “tenacity” (or “persistence”). High tenacity indicates a willingness to undertake projects even if the rewards are only
long term, with the opposite pole being the preference for quick return.
2.3. On the relationship between time management and creativity
Managing time is essentially a planning process (Claessens et al., 2004). Almost 60 years ago Guilford (1950) noted that
creativity, in its narrowest sense, comprises “the abilities.... characteristic of creative people.., which include such activities
as inventing, designing, contriving, composing, and planning. People who exhibit these types of behaviour to a marked
degree are recognized as being creative” (p. 444). Evidence suggests that planning may be a crucial aspect of the creative
process (Osburn & Mumford, 2006).
Creativity is a function of available time and is negatively related to time pressure experienced. Amabile et al. (1996)
demonstrated that members of work groups that produced low-creativity projects experienced higher time pressure than
those who participated in high-creativity projects. In another study, Amabile et al. (2002) found that measures of time
pressure collected on a given day, from 177 employees who were members of 22 project teams from 7 organizations, were
negatively related to creative cognitive processing on that same day and on subsequent days. Since perceived time pressure
seems to be detrimental to creativity, it is plausible that the feeling of having control over one’s time (i.e. perceived control
of time) will correlate to creativity measures.
Although, early theory and research has suggested that time management skills may be beneficial for creative outcomes
(e.g. Glassman, 1986), up to date no empirical studies attempted to link creativity and time management.
Self-regulation and goal-setting theory provides an important conceptual linkage through which creativity and time
management can be integrated theoretically. Self-regulation theorists (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Carver & Scheier, 1998) suggest
that individuals can, to varying degrees, regulate aspects of cognition, motivation and behaviour toward the attainment of a
goal. According to Zimmerman and colleagues (Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004) self-regulating individuals
are in position to set proximal, attainable goals; are learning-oriented rather than achievement-oriented; have an under-
standing that different learning tasks require different strategies and tend to use the most appropriate strategies effectively.
Goal-setting theory, assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions (Locke & Latham, 1990); set-
ting goals is considered an effective motivational technique. The basic motivational assumption of goal setting is that goals
increase attention and effort by providing clear targets toward which individuals can direct their energies. In indirect way,
goals motivate people to discover and use task strategies that will facilitate goal achievement.
Sternberg (2005) argues that most of the characteristics of creative people largely represent decisions. In other words, to
a large extent, people decide to be creative. To be creative, individuals need to be actively engaged in focusing on the task,
trying to think of new ways to do things, and trying to combine disparate elements to come up with novel approaches or
solutions.
Considering that time management may is a particular way of planning, it seems plausible that time management
behaviours (i.e. daily planning, long-range planning) can be used as self-regulation strategies toward the attainment of
novel or useful ideas. This implies that time management behaviours relate to creativity measures. For example, individuals
high in creativity may plan their daily work schedules, so that boring and not intrinsically interesting tasks are completed
first; or they could adjust the length of the workday so that at least some work is accomplished during the periods when
work is regarded less desirably.
However, as the individual engages in the creative act the intensity of engagement can vary from person to person and
from situation to situation (Amabile, 1996; Drazin et al., 1999). An individual may choose minimal engagement, proposing
simple solutions that may not be novel; alternatively, an individual may choose to engage in a full manner using all of
his/her abilities in an effort to produce novel/useful outcomes. According to Root-Bernstein and Root-Bernstein (2004) an
individual can be creative in different domains, for example a scientist can be artistic or an artist can be scientific. They
propose that creative abilities are rather domain-general and creative individuals share common intuitive and cognitive
tools. An opposing site argues that creativity is domain-specific: people have islands of creativity, not a diffuse tendency to
be creative (e.g. Baer, 1998; Feist, 1998). Feist (1998) argued about the temporal stability of the personality dimensions of
creative people. This implies that a general measure of the creative personality (such as the CPS) will show lower correlations
with time management behaviours compared to a measure that captures the tendency to produce novel and useful ideas.
In addition, in line with approaches arguing that creativity is domain specific, it is plausible that time management
as a self-regulatory strategy, is related to creativity under domain-specific conditions. According to Bidjerano and Yun
Dai (2007), consciousness (which includes features such as dependability and responsibility, ability to plan, organize and
persist in the service of achievement, obedience to rules and conformation to norms) was related to higher tendencies
for the use of time management in a sample of US undergraduate students. Within the five-factor model of personality,
time management appears to be most closely related to conscientiousness (Claessens et al., 2004, p. 267). The relation
however, between conscientiousness and creativity presents something of a dilemma; conscientiousness seems to contribute
26 L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
to scientific creativity but detract from artistic creativity (Feist, 1998). George and Zhou (2001) found that employees’ high
conscientiousness may serve to inhibit creative behaviour when the situation encourages the conformist and controlled
tendencies of employees who are high on conscientiousness. Other studies have found direct negative associations between
conscientiousness and different measures of creativity (especially artistic creativity) (e.g. Batey & Furnham, 2006; Furnham,
Zhang, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001).
Finally, while long- or short-ranging planning capture time management behaviour, tendency to organize time captures
attitude about time. It is reported that creative individuals are intrinsically motivated and are equipped with high levels of
persistence (Runco, 2007; Simonton, 2000). Creative individuals may have the tenacity to overcome barriers by deploying
time behavioural patterns that maximize effectiveness over the time scale (Macan, 1994). This is in line with the self-
regulation perspective, where people cope with their complex and unpredictable environments by developing and managing
a set of hierarchically organized goals (Bandura, 1991, 1997). Under the self-regulation perspective, individuals in order to
reach their anticipated goals develop plans and strategies and monitor their behaviours in such a way to attain their goals.
2.4. Purpose and scope of the study
Although relationships between creativity and time management behaviour and attitudes have not been established,
based on the accumulated research, a few meaningful relationships can be explored. Thus, said, we explore the relations
between measures of creativity (e.g. a general measure of the creative personality and a product oriented measure focusing
on the extent to which outcomes are creative) and time management behaviours and attitudes. We expect higher correlations
in the case of the product oriented measure of creativity.
Furthermore, we use the sum of the two creativity measures (when z-scored), as a total creativity measure and explore
the differences in time management behaviours and attitudes between individuals scoring high and low in creativity. We
expect individuals we with high scores on creativity to score higher on both time management behaviour and attitudes.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and procedure
Survey data were collected from 186 undergraduate students from three Greek universities. The majority (59.5%) were
engineering students followed by business students (27.7%) and science students (18.8%). Surveys were administrated indi-
vidually to students, through personal contact by the study authors. Students were randomly located during leisure activities
and asked to voluntarily participate in a research project regarding factors influencing entrepreneurship as a career choice.
There were no monetary incentives or extra course credits. Data collection took place during the 2008 spring semester and
lasted 3 weeks. In sum, the sample consisted of 94 male students (50.5%), the mean sample age was 22.3 years (SD = 2.2).
The questionnaire contained 40 items representing 9 theoretical constructs along with demographic data (age and gender).
3.2. Measurement of theoretical constructs
3.2.1. Measures of creativity
3.2.1.1. Creative personality. Creative personality was assessed using Gough’s (1979) Creative Personality Scale (CPS). Respon-
dents to the CPS describe themselves by checking off 18 positively scored (capable, clever, confident, egotistical, humorous,
individualistic, informal, insightful, intelligent, interests wide, inventive, original, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy,
snobbish, and unconventional) and 12 negatively scored items (honest, artificial, well-mannered, cautious, commonplace,
narrow interests, conservative, sincere, conventional, dissatisfied, submissive, and suspicious). Positive items were given
a value of +1 and negative items a value of −1. The values were then summed to for a CPS index. Scores for the CPS can
range from −12 to 18. We followed the procedure described in Oldham and Cummings (1996), to calculate the reliability
of the total CPS index and it was found satisfactory (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.75). The CPS is a respected instrument that has been
validated in previous studies (e.g. Oldham & Cummings, 1996). A recent research study with Greek students has confirmed
the unidimensionality and internal reliability of the construct (Zampetakis, in press).
3.2.1.2. Self-rating of creativity. Self-rating of creativity was assessed using eight items from the creativity scale developed
by Zhou and George (2001). We used this construct to assess individuals’ beliefs in the production of novel and useful ideas.
Responses to all 8 items were made on 7-point Likert-type scales (1 =strongly disagree, 7 =strongly agree). Sample items for
the production of novel ideas are: “I come up with creative solutions to problems”, “I am a good source of creative ideas”. To
derive an overall score, for self-rating creativity for novel ideas all four items were averaged (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.80). Sample
items for the production of useful ideas are: “I came up with new and practical ideas to improve performance”, “I suggest
new ways to increase the quality of project assignments. To derive an overall score, for self-rating creativity for useful ideas
scores for four items were averaged (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.88). To derive an overall score, for self-rated creativity, scores for
all eight items were averaged (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.90). Previous research results reported by Zampetakis (2008) with Greek
speaking participants have confirmed the validity and internal reliability of this measure of creativity.
L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32 27
3.2.1.3. Total creativity. Total creativity was assessed by taking the sum of the two creativity measures when z-scored. This
allowed the examination of the relationship between a more comprehensive measure of creativity and time management.
The two components of the composite (CPS and self-rated creativity) were significantly correlated with each other (r= 0.26,
p< 0.01); this suggested that they assessed overlapping but distinct aspects of the creativity construct.
3.2.2. Time management behaviour
Because participants were Greek students, all the scales for time management behaviour and attitudes used were first
translated into Greek by two translators, who compared their versions until agreeing on the most correct translation, and
then back-translated into English by a bilingual, native English speaking translator, following the procedure recommended
by Brislin (1980). The few discrepancies between the original English version and the back-translated version resulted in
adjustment in the Greek translation based on direct discussion between the translators. The specific measures used in the
analysis, along with sample items of the relevant constructs, are outlined.
We adopted 10 items from the Time Management Questionnaire (TMQ) scale developed by Britton and Tesser (1991) and
modified by Trueman and Hartley (1996). All items were rated on a 5-point scale: (1) never; (2) infrequently; (3) sometimes;
(4) frequently; (5) always. Five items refer to daily planning behaviours and sample items are: “Do you make lists of the
things you have to do each day?”, “Do you plan your day before you start it?”, “Do you make a schedule of the activities you
have to do on work days?” Scores for all five items were averaged, to derive an overall score (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.82). Five items
refer to confidence on long-range planning, and sample items are: “Do you have a set of goals for the entire quarter?”; “Do
you have a set of goals for the entire term?”. Scores for all five items were averaged, to derive an overall score (Cronbach’s
˛= 0.72). The mean ratings of the 10 items were used as the total time management measure so that the higher the score, the
more the participant use time management behaviours. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient 0.87, for all 10 items was deemed
acceptable.
3.2.3. Time management attitude and motivational aspects
3.2.3.1. Perceived control of time. We used four items of scale developed by Claessens et al. (2004). Ratings were made on a
5-point scale ranging from (1) “do not agree at all’ to (5) “completely agree”. Items used are: “I feel in control of my time”,
“I find it difficult to keep to my schedule because others take me away from my work”, “I feel that I have my work under
control”, “I feel confident in that I am able to complete my work on time”. Scores for all four items were averaged, to derive
an overall score (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.71).
3.2.3.2. Tenacity. We adopted three items from the Time Styles Scale (TSS) scale developed by Usunier and Valette-Florence
(2007). Ratings were made on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) “do not agree at all’ to (7) “completely agree”. Items used are:
“Once I have started an activity, I persist at it until I’ve completed”, “When I begin a project, I don’t like to stop it until it is
finished”, “When I am interrupted doing a task, I almost always go back to it as soon as I can”. Scores for all three items were
averaged, to derive an overall score (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.76).
3.2.3.3. Preference for disorganization. We adopted four items from the Time Management Behaviour Scale (TMBS) scale devel-
oped by Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, and Philips (1990). All items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) “do not agree
at all’ to (7) “completely agree”. Items used are: “I can find the things I need for my work more easily when my workspace
is messy and disorganized than when it is neat and organized”, “I have some of my most creative ideas when I am disorga-
nized”, “I am more effective when I am not prioritizing my tasks”, “I do not pre plan my tasks”. Scores for all four items were
averaged, to derive an overall score (Cronbach’s ˛= 0.78).
3.3. Assessment of common method variance
In order to avoid problems associated with common method variance often found in cross-sectional survey research,
several steps were taken (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). First, all participants were informed that their
participation was completely voluntary and confidential. Second, items referring to the same construct were positioned in
different locations throughout the questionnaire. Third, we tested confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models and followed
Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) procedures to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity (see Appendix A).
All analyses were performed using the maximum likelihood estimation method (ML) and the Mplus (version 5.2) software
(Muthén and Muthén, 2007). To assess model fit, we employed several statistics (Shook, Ketchen, Hult, & Kacmar, 2004):
(a) Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA): 0 = an exact fit, <0.05 = a close fit, 0.05–0.08 = a fair fit, 0.08–0.10 =a
mediocre fit, and >0.10 = a poor fit (Mplus also computes a 90% confidence interval around RMSEA); (b) Comparative Fit
Index (CFI): best if above 0.95; (c) Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI): best if above 0.95; (d) Root Mean Square Residual (RMR): best
fit for values less than 0.10. For model comparisons, smaller values in Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) represent a better
fit of the model (Shook et al., 2004).
Results of CFA analyses indicated that all theoretical constructs had an acceptable fit (see Appendix A) and all path
coefficients loading to the factor for which it was a proposed were significant at the p< 0.001 level. In summary, results
indicate that common method effects are not a likely contaminant of the results observed in this investigation.
28 L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
3.4. Analytical strategy
We assessed total creativity by taking the sum of the two creativity measures when z-scored. Then we eliminated all
medium responses by deleting all students that had an average score within a half standard deviation of the mean. This
procedure of eliminating all “medium” responses reduced the sample size from 186 to 108 (54 individuals belonging to each
group). Independent samples t-tests provided an ideal method for determining if there were significant differences in the
time management behaviour and attitudes of students of the two groups. This method compares the means of two groups
to determine how much the mean of one group differs from the other group’s mean.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
In Table 1, we present means, standard deviations and intercorrelations. Correlations in Table 1, indicate that total creativ-
ity is correlated positively with daily planning (r= 0.31, p< 0.01), confidence on long-range planning (r= 0.57, p< 0.01), total
time management (r= 0.48, p< 0.01), perceived control of time (r= 0.42, p< 0.01), tenacity (r= 0.46, p< 0.01), and negatively
related to preference for disorganization (r=−0.32, p< 0.01).
For the general measure of the creative personality (CPS), the correlations with time management behaviours and atti-
tudes are consistent with the correlations obtained with the total creativity measure. However, for the CPS the magnitude
of the correlations are lower compared to the correlations obtained with the self-rated measure of creativity.
4.2. Independent samples t-tests
An analysis of Table 2 indicates that the low–high creativity student groups had statistical significant differences in terms
of: total time management [t(106) = −6.72, p< 0.001]; daily planning [t(106) = −4.45, p< 0.001]; confidence on long-range
planning [t(106) = −7.59, p< 0.001]; perceived control of time [t(101)= −5.58, p< 0.001]; tenacity [t(101) = −6.30, p< 0.001];
preference for disorganization [t(101) = 4.66, p< 0.001].
We used the GPower (version 3.01) statistical program (Erdfelder, Faul, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to estimate the effect
sizes (Cohen’s d) of the aforementioned independent t-test. Results are presented in Table 2.
According to Cohen’s (1988) widely accepted suggestions all effect sizes are large to very large. We performed sensitivity
analysis with GPower in order to estimate the effect size that the study was able to detect with a power (1 −ˇ) 80% and
˛= 0.05. Results indicate that the minimum effect size to which independent t-tests were sufficiently sensitive is 0.55; which
is still a moderate to large effect.
5. Discussion, implications and limitations
To our knowledge, the present study is the first that attempts to empirically explore the relationships between creativity
and time management behaviour and attitudes. Correlation analyses and independent t-tests were conducted with under-
graduate student data from Greek universities. Specifically, our results suggested that self-perceived creativity is positively
related to daily planning, confidence on long-range planning, total time management, perceived control of time, tenacity,
and negatively related to preference for disorganization. In addition, we found moderate to large effect sizes of the mean
differences observed on the aforementioned variables between high and low creative individuals. The exploratory and cross-
sectional research presented herein, despite limitations, can provide some insights regarding the relation between creativity
and the management of time.
Before turning to the broader implications of this study, certain limitations should be noted. To begin, while adequate for
the nature of the study, the sample is somewhat homogeneous with the majority (almost 60%) being engineering students.
It is not clear that the responses of these participants can be generalized to older employees in organizational settings.
Generalizing the results, therefore, from college students should be done with caution. Additionally, it is plausible that
results would be quite different with a population of art students.
Furthermore, while the instruments used in this study appear to have been adequate, they provided only self-report
data. Future research is needed using experimental methods to measure the relationship between creativity and time
management. Furthermore future research could employ other creativity measures such as the Kirton Adaption Innova-
tion Inventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1976) the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1988) or the Consensual Assessment
Technique (Amabile, 1982).
Future research should also account for potentially confounding variables in the creativity-time management relationship
such as metacognition. Britton and Glynn (1989) refer to metacognition as an executive system overseeing and supervising
the operations of cognition. They suggest metacognition is “mental time” that must be managed by creative individuals.
Individuals who fail to manage this mental time are not in control of their processing resources, and are thus fated to uncertain
outcomes. In contrast, creative individuals who are able to manage their mental time have a much greater likelihood of
meeting their creative goals. Finally, it should be recognized that in this study we implicitly used the term “time” as embedded
into a social context. This conceptualization of time can vary among individuals, organizations, or societies (Collinson &
L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32 29
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, skewness, and kurtosis values for the study variables.
MSDSkewness Kurtosis 1 23456789
1. CPS 3.18 2.99 0.07 −0.37 (0.75) 0.19** 0.65** 0.19** 0.15** 0.23** 0.24** 0.15** −0.14**
2. Self-rating of creativity 5.32 0.61 0.37 0.92 0.26** (0.90) 0.58** 0.40** 0.26** 0.48** 0.31** 0.46** −0.26**
3. Total creativitya0.00 1.49 0.15 0.22 0.79** 0.79** (–) 0.35** 0.24** 0.44** 0.34** 0.35** −0.24**
4. Total time management 3.35 0.48 0.05 0.06 0.24** 0.52** 0.48** (0.87) 0.79** 0.76** 0.39** 0.41** −0.23**
5. Daily planning 3.22 0.62 −0.15 0.69 0.16*0.32** 0.31** 0.91** (0.82) 0.50** 0.37** 0.28** −0.18**
6. Confidence on long-range planning 3.46 0.45 0.33 0.98 0.26** 0.64** 0.57** 0.82** 0.51** (0.72) 0.41** 0.50** −0.24**
7. Perceived control of time 3.86 0.40 −0.96 2.70 0.26** 0.40** 0.42** 0.44** 0.33** 0.45** (0.71) 0.41** −0.24**
8. Tenacity 5.15 0.85 −0.50 2.37 0.18*0.55** 0.46** 0.45** 0.32** 0.59** 0.49** (0.76) −0.26**
9. Preference for disorganization 2.55 0.98 0.96 2.03 −0.17*−0.34** −0.32** −0.35** −0.28** −0.34** −0.29** −0.34** (0.78)
Note.n= 186. Reliabilities are in parentheses; Pearson product moment correlations are below the diagonal; Kentall’s tau above the diagonal.
aEstimated from the sum of CPS and self-rating of creativity when z-scored.
*p< 0.05 (two-tailed).
** p< 0.01 (two-tailed).
30 L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
Table 2
Independent t-tests and effects sizes (Cohen’s d) for the differences between high- and low-creativity groups.
Low-creativitya
Group (n= 54)
High-creativitya
group (n= 54)
Independent t-test Cohen’s d
MSD MSD
1.Total time management 3.03 0.42 3.60 0.46 t(106) = −6.72** 1.29
2.Daily planning 2.91 0.55 3.41 0.62 t(106) = −4.45** 0.86
3. Confidence on long-range planning 3.15 0.39 3.78 0.47 t(106) = −7.59** 1.47
4. Perceived control of time 3.64 0.41 4.06 0.36 t(106) = −5.58** 1.10
5. Tenacity 4.72 0.76 5.64 0.76 t(106) = −6.30** 1.22
6. Preference for disorganization 2.98 1.16 2.13 0.68 t(106) = 4.66** 0.90
aTotal creativity.
** p< 0.001 (two-tailed).
Cook, 2001). However, a dimension of individual time-related differences that is critical to the understanding of creative
endeavors is the notion of “timelessness” (Mainemelis, 2001, 2002). Timelessness is the experience of losing oneself in one’s
work such that one seems to transcend time. This is in line with Csíkszentmihályi (1990) concept of flow. Flow is a mental
state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing by a feeling of energized focus and full
involvement. Focus and concentration hold the key to achieving flow. Many of the peculiarities attributed to creative persons
are really just ways to maintain concentration and lose themselves in the creative process. Future research should examine
whether and how “timelessness” and flow are managed.
Even bearing these caveats in mind, we believe that the results obtained in this study have some noteworthy theoretical
and practical implications. To begin, time management has not received much attention in studies of creativity. Nonetheless,
there is reason to suspect that time management may relate to creativity, as people seek to adapt their actions to an envisioned
future. And, in fact, the results obtained in this study regarding the relationship between time management behaviours and
creativity provides some support for this proposition.
Results showed that individual creativity was significantly related to time management behaviours (daily planning, and
confidence on long-range planning) and time attitudes (perceived control of time, tenacity and preference for disorganiza-
tion). Correlations were found to be stronger when creativity was considered as product oriented (focusing on the extent to
which outcomes are useful and novel) compared to correlations obtained with a general creative personality construct (i.e.
CPS). This implies that planning daily activities, prioritizing them, and having a confidence on long-range planning are more
relevant to the production of novel and useful ideas. In other words our results suggest that time management behaviours
may be necessary for the effective exploitation of creative ideas. Furthermore we examined subgroups based on level of
creativity in order to investigate potentially systematic changes in terms of time management attitudes and behaviours.
Students belonging to the high-creativity group scored higher in all time management and attitudes scales.
Our results have some interesting practical implications. First, although individual creativity relates to autonomy (Dewett,
2007; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), it is possible that such autonomy may be meaningless if individuals did not also have the
freedom to choose which tasks to plan and schedule. Individuals would need to be able to choose the day-to-day and long-
term activities that would lead to the completion of a larger task. This is in line with previous research findings indicating that
the most frequently mentioned contextual factor characterizing high-creativity events was freedom (Amabile & Gryskiewicz,
1989). Next, our results implicitly confirm the idea that supervisors’ (teacher’s) planning skills are an important influence
on the work of people high in creativity (Mumford, 2000). Supervisors that are responsible for long-term projects should
do substantial planning beforehand and avoid assigning individuals high in creativity, tasks that are not intriguing and
motivating.
Overall these results are in line with arguments about the importance of time as a valuable resource for creativity (e.g.
Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Amabile et al., 1996; Runco, 2007); despite the limitations described above, this exploratory
study contributes to a growing literature on individual creativity and time management. Future researches need to further
unravel the complex relationships between individual creativity, time management and context.
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially supported by a postdoctoral research scholarship granted to the first author by the Greek
State Scholarship Foundation (IKY-801/2009).
Appendix A.
We present the measurement model fit statistics in Table A1. Next, in order to correct for random measurement error, the
items for each scale were averaged to create single indicators for each latent variable (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The latent-to-
manifest parameter for each variable was fixed to one for each measure, and the value of one minus the reliability multiplied
by a variable’s variance was used to represent the error variance. We used the analytic procedure described by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988). The measurement model that allowed the underlying latent constructs to correlate freely and constrained
L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32 31
Table A1
Measurement models fit statistics.
Construct Number of items 2d.f. RMSEA CFI TLI RMR
Self-rating of creativity 8 14.61** 14 0.049 (90% CI: 0.0–0.088) 0.989 0.978 0.036
Daily planning 5 8.85** 5 0.065 (90% CI: 0.0–0.098) 0.988 0.976 0.019
Total time management 10 177.65 35 0.11 (90% CI: 0.09–0.139) 0.870 0.897 0.049
Confidence on long-range planning 5 1.49** 5 0.0 (90% CI: 0.0–0.039) 1.000 1.000 0.007
Perceived control of time 4 1.19** 2 0.0 (90% CI: 0.0–0.011) 1.000 1.000 0.006
Tenacity 3 0.00 0 0.0 1.000 1.000 0.000
Preference for disorganization 4 19.15** 2 0.098 (90% CI: 0.05–0.012) 0.985 0.968 0.046
Note.n= 186. 2: chi-square statistic; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis Index; RMR: Root
Mean Square Residual.
** p> 0.05.
Table B1
One-factor test model.
Model 2d.f. RMSEA CFI TLI RMR AIC
Hypothesized seven-factor model 0.02** 1 0.0 (90% CI: 0.035–0.094) 1.000 1.000 0.035 70.02
One-factor model 53.87ns 20 0.011 (90% CI: 0.095–0.128) 0.895 0.908 0.662 85.87
Note.n= 186. 2: chi-square statistic; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis Index; RMR: Root
Mean Square Residual; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; ns: non significant.
** p> 0.05.
each item to load only to the factor for which it was a proposed indicator was assessed. To further assess discriminant validity
of the proposed constructs, we compared the measurement model with a one-factor model and examined the change in
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). According to Harmon’s one-factor test (as prescribed by Podsakoff et al., 2003), evidence
that common method variance does not account for the observed relationships would be provided if a seven-factor model
representing each variable as a separate construct, is superior to a one-factor model. The hypothesized measurement model
fit the data better than the alternative, both in terms of the fit statistics and when directly contrasted with a change in
AIC. In summary, results indicate that common method effects are not a likely contaminant of the results observed in this
investigation (Table B1).
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Update to social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(5), 997–1013.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal,39,
1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment work scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal,2, 231–254.
Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L. (2002). Time pressure and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal
field study. Working Paper No. 02-073. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 411–423.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,11(2), 173–177.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50, 248–287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs,132(4), 355–429.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences,45, 816–821.
Bidjerano, T., & Yun Dai, D. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual
Differences,17, 69–81.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology
(pp. 398–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Britton, B. K., & Glynn, S. M. (1989). Mental management and creativity: A cognitive model of time management for intellectual productivity. In J. A. Glover,
& C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 429–440). New York: Plenum Press.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology,83, 405–410.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Planning behavior and perceived control of time at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 937–950.
Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review,36(2), 255–276.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. (2001). I don’t have enough time”—Teacher’s interpretations of time as a key to learning and social change. Journal of Educational
Administration,39, 266–281.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management,37(3), 197–208.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management
Review,24, 286–307.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods,32(2), 175–191.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius. The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32 L.A. Zampetakis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 5 (2010) 23–32
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review,2(4), 290–309.
Furnham, A., Zhang, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and
academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,25(2), 119–145.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology,86(3), 513–524.
Glassman, E. (1986). Managing for creativity: Back to basics in R&D. R&D Management,16(2), 175–183.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37, 1398–1405.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist,5, 444–454.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment,45(5), 450–464.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,61, 622–629.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal.
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology,79(3), 381–391.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Philips, A. P. (1990). College students time management: Correlations with academic performance and stress.
Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 760–768.
Mainemelis, C. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management Review,26, 548–565.
Mainemelis, C. (2002). Time and timelessness: Creativity in (and out of) the temporal dimension. Creativity Research Journal,14(2), 227–238.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis for the creative process. Psychological Bulletin,69, 220–232.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review,10(3), 313–351.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,39(3), 607–634.
Osburn, H. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research
Journal,18(2), 173–190.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions
in creativity research. Educational Psychologist,39(2), 83–96.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903.
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. G.
Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA).
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation models in strategic management research.
Strategic Management Journal,25, 397–404.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental and social aspects. American Psychologist,55, 151–158.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A model of educational leadership: Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
8(4), 347–364.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 43–75). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Trueman, M., & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time management skills and academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university
students. Higher Education,32, 199–215.
Usunier, J. C., & Valette-Florence, P. (2007). The Time Styles Scale. A review of developments and replications over 15 years. Time & Society,16(2/3), 333–366.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing and hobbies. European Journal of Personality,15, 297–310.
Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). The role of creativity and proactivity on perceived entrepreneurial desirability. Thinking Skills and Creativity,3, 154–162.
Zampetakis, L. A. (in press). Unfolding the measurement of the creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking creativity with entrepreneurial intention: A structural approach. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal,2(3), 413–428.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal,44(4),
582–696.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist,30, 217–221.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A social cognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 143–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
