Giving Employees Fewer Choices May Actually Boost Their Creativity, New Research Suggests

A new study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University is challenging one of the most common assumptions about creativity in the workplace. We often hear that creativity thrives when people have complete freedom, plenty of autonomy, and no constraints. But according to this research, giving employees less control over which of their ideas move forward can actually make them more creative—especially when their pay depends on how well they perform.

This conclusion comes from a study conducted by VCU School of Business faculty members Bernhard Reichert and Alisa Brink. Their work, published in Behavioral Research in Accounting under the title Guardrails on the Creative Process: The Impact of Decision Rights and Incentives on Creativity, examines how decision-making structures and performance-based incentives influence the quality of creative output. The findings reveal a counterintuitive reality: under certain conditions, limiting autonomy provides a protective framework that leads to more original ideas, not fewer.

Why Less Autonomy Can Lead to More Creativity

One of the most interesting insights from the study is the connection between performance-based pay and employee decision-making. When employees were allowed to choose which of their creative ideas to pursue, and their compensation was tied to the final evaluation of that idea, they tended to choose ideas that were simply “good enough.” The researchers note that this mindset reduces the likelihood of breakthrough thinking, because individuals under performance pressure often avoid risks.

In contrast, when employees generated ideas but did not control which ones advanced—leaving that step to managers or review committees—their initial ideas were significantly more creative. Removing the responsibility of selecting the idea seems to reduce pressure and anxiety, allowing people to focus on generating novel possibilities rather than strategizing which idea might earn the best reward.

This is an important distinction. The study does not argue that employees should be micromanaged during the creative process itself. Instead, it suggests that the idea selection phase may be better handled by someone other than the creator, particularly in workplaces where incentives are tied to outcomes. According to the researchers, this structure puts “guardrails” around the creative process, protecting it from external pressures that could dilute originality.

When Autonomy Makes No Significant Difference

The researchers also found that when compensation was not tied to the evaluation of creative output—meaning employees received a fixed salary regardless of how creative their ideas were—there was no meaningful difference between high-autonomy and low-autonomy conditions. Employees generated similar levels of creativity whether or not they controlled which ideas moved forward.

This part of the study serves as a reminder that the effects of autonomy are closely tied to context. Autonomy isn’t universally helpful or harmful; its impact depends on the environment, the expectations placed on employees, and the incentives they face.

What Managers and Organizations Should Take Away

The implications for workplaces are straightforward but potentially transformative:

When pay is tied to creative performance, too much autonomy may unintentionally suppress creativity.
Managers or designated committees may be better equipped to choose which ideas should move forward, allowing employees to stay in a purely creative mindset.
Creative processes should be treated differently from routine tasks. They require thoughtful structuring, not the assumption that freedom alone produces breakthroughs.
Some constraints can act as productive limitations, guiding employees without stifling their thinking.

The study reinforces an essential point: creativity doesn’t just come from hiring talented individuals. It also depends on building systems that nurture and protect the fragile early stages of idea generation.

Why Constraints Sometimes Help Creativity

While many people assume that creativity relies on wide-open freedom, there is a long history of research suggesting that constraints can actually enhance creative thinking. For example:

Creative constraints narrow the problem space, giving creators clearer boundaries to work within.
A limited set of options can reduce decision fatigue, freeing up cognitive energy for actual creative work.
Constraints can push individuals to look for unconventional solutions when easy or obvious answers aren’t available.

In this sense, the VCU study contributes to a growing body of evidence: freedom alone isn’t enough to spark original thinking. Structured systems, intentional processes, and clearly defined roles can be just as important.

Understanding the Two Stages of Creativity

Creativity isn’t a single step—it has two distinct phases:

Divergent Thinking
This is the wide-open, idea-generating phase. People brainstorm freely, explore possibilities, and come up with a variety of concepts.
Convergent Thinking
In this stage, ideas are evaluated, refined, and narrowed down.

Problems arise when both stages are placed on the shoulders of one person under performance pressure. According to the research, employees choosing their own idea to pursue—knowing their pay depends on the outcome—may abandon bold, unproven ideas during the convergent stage. They revert to safer options rather than taking risks.

By having a manager or committee handle the convergent phase, organizations can preserve the integrity of the divergent phase, where creativity actually happens.

How This Research Fits Into Broader Creativity Studies

Across multiple fields—psychology, design, business, and innovation studies—autonomy has traditionally been viewed as one of the strongest drivers of creativity. Autonomy encourages people to explore, experiment, and feel ownership over their work. However, modern creativity research is becoming more nuanced. Recent studies increasingly highlight the benefits of strategically applied constraints.

For instance:

Some design studies show that limited resources lead teams to develop more inventive solutions.
Cognitive research suggests that structured decision-making reduces analysis paralysis.
Organizational studies show that creative workers often produce their best ideas within systems that offer guided freedom rather than complete independence.

The VCU findings align with this newer, more complex view of creativity. They don’t dismiss the value of autonomy—they refine it by showing that autonomy’s effectiveness depends heavily on when and how it is applied.

Why These Findings Matter Today

In many modern workplaces, creativity has become a central part of job expectations. From marketing teams to R&D labs to product design units, the pressure to innovate is higher than ever. Companies often try to nurture creativity through perks, flexible schedules, or open-ended freedom. But without understanding how incentives impact behavior, organizations may unintentionally dampen the very creativity they hope to encourage.

This research reminds us that creativity is not just a personality trait. It is shaped by environmental factors, expectations, and decision structures. Small changes to how ideas are evaluated can lead to big differences in how ideas are produced.

Reference

Research Paper:
Guardrails on the Creative Process: The Impact of Decision Rights and Incentives on Creativity
https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2024-017