Exploring the microfoundations fundamental to organizational creative capacity
Written by: Ing. J.H. Sol (#5973163)
March 2011
University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis Business Studies Supervisor: Dr. Ranjita M. Singh 2nd supervisor: 2
Preface
During my master Business Studies I have developed a deep interest in theories that aim to explain the sources of performance differentials among firms active in high-tech sectors. My interest in these firms can be explained by the incredible innovations they bring to markets and the subsequent positive enrichments these innovations have on our lives. Throughout last years, I have studied dozens of theories that present factors that potentially influence performance differentials among firms. These factors vary from theories related to organizational structures to theories on the influence of managerial cognitive dissonance. However, of all factors that inIluence a companies` competitive strength, I have found organizational creativity to be the most important by far. In my opinion, human creativity is the ignition spark of all technological innovation and is therefore the fundamental cause of almost all competitive dynamics in high-tech sectors. History has shown that breakthrough creative ideas can mean the beginning of a Schumpeterian shock, which can result into massive shifts in wealth distribution among industry players. This notion of creative destruction fascinated me and has raised a lot of questions related to the somewhat mysterious concept of creativity. Among these questions are: Why are some companies more creative then others? Do successful companies have more creative employees than their competitors, or do they have different managerial practices? Do creative people exist at all, or is creative achievement caused by intensive efforts? During this thesis I have tried to answer questions like these in order to get a better understanding of the roots of value creation within a capitalist society. I would like to thank a few people that contributed to this thesis. In the first place I would like to thank Ranjita Singh for her supervision during my research. Her valuable, timely and adequate feedback was of great value and certainly influenced the quality of this research in a positive way. I also would like to thank all interviewees for spending time and attention on this research; without their corporation this research would simply be impossible. I very much enjoyed interviewing knowledgeable people regarding the topic that interested me so much. At last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my parents Joop and Janine for their unconditional support during my study. Having said that, I hope you enjoy reading this thesis.
Johan Sol Amsterdam, March 2011 3
Abstract
This thesis aims to reveal the microfoundations that undergird organizational creative capacity by conducting a multiple-case study. This thesis first explains that organizational creative capacity is a subset of the broader domain of organizational innovative capacity. This is followed by an extensive literature review that draws on literature from various fields within social sciences in order to gather the variables currently known to influence organizational creative capacity. A multiple-case study at six different high-tech firms is conducted in order to verify and complement our understanding of the microfoundations fundamental to organizational creative capacity. Keywords: Organizational creative capacity; creativity; competitive advantage; sensing capabilities; sensing microfoundations 4
Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Dynamic capabilities & organizational creativity .......................................................................... 9 2.2 Creativity ..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Creativity from a strategic perspective ....................................................................................... 15 2.4 Organizational creativity ............................................................................................................. 16 2.4.1 Variables related to individual creativity .............................................................................. 18 2.4.1.1 Individual creativity assessment ................................................................................... 20 2.4.1.2 Knowledge ..................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.1.3 Creativity training .......................................................................................................... 27 2.4.1.4 Intrinsic motivation ....................................................................................................... 28 2.4.1.5 Extrinsic motivation ....................................................................................................... 29 2.4.1.6 Work pressure ............................................................................................................... 29 2.4.2. Variables related to group creativity ................................................................................... 30 2.4.2.1 Whole brain theory ....................................................................................................... 31 2.4.2.2 Creative problem solving tools ...................................................................................... 32 2.4.3 Variables related to both individual and group creativity .................................................... 33 2.4.3.1 Culture ........................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.3.2 Physical environment .................................................................................................... 38 2.4.3.3 Resource availability ...................................................................................................... 39 3.0 Research method ............................................................................................................................ 40 3.1 Overall design .............................................................................................................................. 40 3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................. 40 3.3 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................ 42 4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 43 4.1 Results related to individual creativity ........................................................................................ 43 4.1.1 Creativity assessment ........................................................................................................... 43 4.1.2 Motivation ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.1.3 Work pressure ...................................................................................................................... 49 5
4.1.4 Creativity training ................................................................................................................. 50 4.2. Results related to group creativity ............................................................................................. 50 4.2.1 Whole brain theory .............................................................................................................. 51 4.2.2 Creative problem solving techniques ................................................................................... 52 4.3 Results related to both individual and group creativity .............................................................. 53 4.3.1 Culture .................................................................................................................................. 53 4.3.2 Physical environment ........................................................................................................... 56 4.3.3 Resource availability ............................................................................................................. 56 5.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 57 5.1 Discussion on individual creativity level ...................................................................................... 58 5.1.1 Creativity assessment ........................................................................................................... 58 5.1.2. Stimulating creativity at individual level ............................................................................. 61 5.2 Discussion on group creativity level ............................................................................................ 63 5.3 Discussion on variables related to both individual and group creativity .................................... 65 5.4 Managerial implications .............................................................................................................. 65 5.5 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................................. 66 5.6 Future research ........................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................ 71 References ............................................................................................................................................. 72
6
1.0 I ntroduction
During the last decade much academic attention has been paid to the dynamic capabilities theory which aims to explain performance differentials in volatile technology-intensive markets (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). In these environments, where technological progress plays a dominant role, firms that continually create, extend, upgrade, protect, and keep relevant their unique asset base will survive and prosper (Teece, 2007, p. 1319). In other words, firms that are able to capture a significant stake of the value created by a technological advancement will be able to survive and prosper. However, this leaves open the question of how value is created in these firms and thereby ignores an important aspect in explaining performance differentials among high-tech firms. This is a critical gap in the dynamic capabilities theory as before capturing value it is important to first create it. Understanding the process of value creation requires identifying the microfoundations required for value creation. While we have an idea of the microfoundations for capturing value Irom Teece`s seminal paper (2007), a similar account for creating value eludes us. Teece (2007) describes various microfoundations that are required for capturing value and defines these as distinct skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules and disciplines. However, the microfoundations for capturing value cannot simply be extended to the microfoundations for creating value. In this paper I will firstly explain that organizational creative capacity plays a fundamental role in value creation and is of great importance from a strategic management perspective. After that, this thesis aims to address the following research question: Which microfoundations undergird organizational creative capacity? It is important to understand how organizations develop and sustain organizational creative capacity, essentially the microfoundations associated with organizational creativity. 7
One of the fundamental pillars of the dynamic capabilities theory is sensing opportunities that can ultimately result in creation of value for the firms. Yet, there is not much research on how to sense new opportunities. To address this gap I suggest that the dynamic capabilities theory should be complemented with the literature on organizational creativity in order to provide a more solid explanation for performance differentials among dynamic high-tech markets. In spite of the importance to organizations, creativity has received relatively little attention from strategic management scholars. A possible explanation for this could be because creativity is considered to be the same as innovation. However, these two concepts are fundamentally different. Creativity as human behavior can lead to creative output like new knowledge which can, if valuable and appropriate, be applied in new products or services surrounded by appropriate business models. In case these new products or services are introduced on the marketplace, they are considered to be an innovation. Therefore, creativity is a subset of the entire innovation process. The dynamic capabilities theory assumes that opportunities from technological advancements simply exist and therefore only describes how to identify this and subsequently capture value from it by engaging in technological advancements. The fundamental driver behind these innovations, human creativity, has received very little attention in the strategic management literature. However, organizations often have to create and toil hard to develop new ideas that have the potential to be translated into innovations. In this paper, therefore I seek to understand how organizations develop and secure organizational creative capacity that allows them to develop innovations. In order to reveal these value creating microfoundations a multiple-case study is conducted at six high-tech firms. This multiple-case study is largely based on the framework on organizational creativity of Woodman et al. (1993) as this is the most comprehensive 8
framework on organizational creativity. In order to understand the complex phenomenon of human creativity, this framework is complemented by creativity literature derived from the psychology discipline. The structure of this paper is as follows. In the following chapter, various relevant literature on (organizational) creativity from various fields will be discussed. In the third section, the research method will be described. The results of the multiple-case study will be described in section four. In the subsequent section, section five, a discussion will take place wherein the results are being compared with the theories as described in the theoretical framework section.
9
2.0 Theoretical framewor k
2.1 Dynamic capabilities & organizational creativity The focus area of this research, high-tech-industries, will be more important by the day as these industries increasingly determine economic growth (Mowery & Rosenberg, 1989). These high-tech sectors are to a large extent driven by technological change which is occurring continuously. Because the number of innovations brought to the marketplace is significantly higher in this industry than in say the retail or the steel industry, this sector significantly more dynamic. In high-tech industries, progress is fuelled by new product introductions and not by efficiency gains resulting from process innovations. Likewise, sustainable competitive advantage in these industries is also largely unaffected by efficiency gains; 'Improving quality, controlling costs, lowering inventories, and adopting best practices will no longer suffice for long-run competitive success` (Teece, 2007, p. 1346). This notion is supported by Porter (1996) as he states: 'The quest for productivitv, qualitv, and speed has spawned a remarkable number of management tools and techniques, total quality management benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering and change management. Although the resulting operational improvements have been dramatic, many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate gains into sustainable profitabilitv` (p. 61). The inability to achieve competitive advantage from these efficiency measures is probably due to the increasingly global open character of these high- tech sectors in which all firms use the same widespread efficiency measures. This widespread usage ultimately results in relative zero performance differentials. Besides that a focus on efficiency does not lead to sustainable competitive advantage, manuIacturing economies oI scale are either insuIIicient. Teece (2007) states that 'Nor do traditional scale economies in production always have the differentiating power they may 10
once had. More than scale and scope advantage are needed` (p. 1346). The reduced effectiveness of traditional scale economies in manufacturing is caused by the popularity of outsourcing. As more and more firms are outsourcing their manufacturing processes scale economies will be achieved at the outsourcing partner and therefore making outsourcing even more attractive. In other words, company assets become industry assets. Rather than efficiency measures and economies of scale, it is innovation that leads to competitive advantage. Nevertheless, in these volatile high-tech markets innovation only leads to temporary competitive advantage instead of sustainable competitive advantage as subsequent innovation will lead to altered competitive positions. According to this Schumpeterian view (Schumpeter, 1934) the purpose of the firm is to seize competitive opportunity by creating or adopting innovations that make rivals` position obsolete: 'this kind of competition is as much more effective than [price competition over existing products] as a bombardment is on comparison with forcing a door (Schumpeter, 1950, p. 84). This Schumpeterian view and the dynamic capabilities view seem to agree that technological progress is the main value creator in these markets. Nevertheless, Teece (2007) is more concerned about sustainable competitive advantage which means that he is more concerned about how to manage and organize a firm in such a way that it is able to capture value from subsequent innovations over the long run. In order to achieve this, the dynamic capabilities theory states that a firm should possess three capabilities: sensing, seizing and reconfiguring capabilities. Sensing is related to the identification of technological advancements and other opportunities that could inIluence a company`s competitive position. Seizing is related to the transformation of these identified (technological) opportunities into products and services surrounded by appropriate business models to extract economic rents from these products and services. Reconfiguration capabilities are related to the ability to combine, reconfigure and protect assets that efficiently facilitate operational business models. Teece (2007) explains 11
that these capabilities subsequently consist out oI microIoundations; distinct skills, processes, procedures, organi:ational structures, decision rules, and disciplines` (p. 1319). The microfoundations described in the paper of Teece (2007) are largely related to value capturing and, to a large extent, ignore the microfoundations required for value creation (i.e. creating technological advancements). It is unlikely that firms solely aim to capture value from technological advancements while not creating technological advancements themselves. However, in some cases the sensing capability could play an important role during the initiation of the innovation process as customer sensing could reveal unmet technological needs. Appropriate innovations make possible to fulfill these unmet technological needs. Teece (2007) provides good insight into the microfoundations required for identifying these unmet needs but on the other hand fails to explain which microfoundations underlie the development of these technological advancements itself. The subsequent question therefore should be: which microfoundations are required for creating technological advancements? The paper advanced claims that organizational creative capacity plays a fundamental role into creating technological advancements and therefore aims to reveal microfoundations related to organizational creativity.
Technological advancement is initiated by the creation of new knowledge (Popaiduk & Choo, 2006, p. 308). Knowledge creation is largely based on human creativity. II there wasn`t any creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns (de Bono, 1992). This implies that organizations should support (creative) individuals in order to stimulate the creative process resulting in creative products. (Nonaka, 1994, p. 17). Besides being fundamental to technological innovation, human creativity is also a prerequisite Ior entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Innovative business models like Dell Inc`s and Wall-Mart`s are also products of human creativity and illustrate that creativity is also 12
important to other areas then technology as well. Schumpeter (1934) was the first one to link creativity as intrinsic personal quality with the ability to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities. Ardichvili et al. (2003) list Iive key Iactors that inIluence someone`s ability to identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities: alertness, prior knowledge, optimism, social networks and creativity.
Having explained the importance and role of (organizational) creativity, one particular inherent characteristic of organizational creativity should be highlighted from a strategic viewpoint. One distinguishing attribute of organizational creative capacity is that it cannot be acquired from a marketplace and that it cannot be executed on command. This property of organizational creativity is in stark contrast to many other rent generating resources like most tangible assets or in some cases knowledge. Organizational creative capacity is to a large extent based on (the interaction between) human capacities, human mindsets / attitudes, and environmental influences. Human mindsets / attitudes cannot be selected or activated, this has to be stimulated through an organizational culture. Managers therefore need to have a thorough understanding of which microfoundations are fundamental to organizational creative capacity. This research is based on the premise that individual creativity is dependent on the interaction of the employee itself with its environment. This interactionist notion is introduced by Woodman & Schoenfeldt (1990). 'From an interactionalist perspective, the behaviour of an organism at any point in time is a complex interaction of the situation and something else this something else is the nature of the organism itself'(p. 279-280). Some years later, Woodman et al. (1993) proposed a framework on organizational creativity based on this interactionist notion. This framework goes one step further by analyzing group creativity and organizational creativity as well. This framework analysis organizational creativity on three different levels; the individual, the group and the organization while incorporating a variety of 13
variables. In dynamic capabilities terms these variables can be seen as microfoundations as they contain processes, skills, capacities and structures that undergird organizational creative capacity. This thesis is, to a large extent, based on this framework as this framework offers a solid basis for investigating the microfoundations fundamental to organizational creative capacity. Before the framework on organizational creativity will be illustrated and described, two other topics will be discussed. Firstly, in order to avoid miscommunication, a more in-depth description of creativity itself will be given. Secondly, the current state of creativity research from a strategic management perspective will be described. Thereafter, the framework on organizational creativity will be explained and discussed.
2.2 Creativity While the management literature, to a large extent, ignores the role and aspects of creativity, various other fields do spend much attention on creativity research. Creativity is a widely studied subject that is investigated from a variety of perspectives. Equally diverse are the various definitions used to define the concept but the most common definition is 'the abilitv to produce work that is both novel (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropri ate (i.e. useful, adaptive concerning task constraints'(Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p. 3). Most definitions of creativity have two familiar components. First, it is related to something new, different or innovative. Second, the creative product should be appropriate and useful (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010a). The focus of this research is on organizational creativity capacity which I define as the capacity to create valuable, useful new products, services, ideas, procedures, or processes by individuals working together in a complex social system. This definition is partly based on the definition of Woodman et al. (1993, p. 293). Organizational creative capacity is not the same as innovative capacity but can be seen as a subset of innovative 14
capacity (p.293). Organizational innovative capacity can be defined as the capacity to introduce valuable, useful new products, services, ideas, procedures, or processes. In similar vein, seizing capacity (e.g. ability to transform creative output into business models) can be perceived as another subset of innovative capacity. However, organizational creative capacity is a difficult to measure construct as creative outcomes appear in various forms (i.e. patents, ideas, products, etc.) of which quantity and quality are often difficult to measure. As mentioned above, creativity has received a lot of attention from scholars. Creativity related theories and research can be divided into 4 categories: process, product, person, and place. Research related to process refers to theories that focus on the creative process and therefore 'aim to understand the nature of the mental mechanisms that occur when a person is engaged in creative thinking or creative activitv` (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010, p. 24). Theories and studies related to the product aspect focuses on creative product itself. Creative products could be works of art, inventions, publications, musical compositions etc. (p. 24). These studies are related to the evaluation of products by examining originality, relevance, useIulness and complexity. The inherent weakness oI these studies is that they don`t tell anything about the creative process or about the creative personality that created the creative product. Therefore, other studies aim to discover whether creative persons share certain personality traits, properties, or behaviors. The last category of creativity research is on the place aspect. Place, or sometimes referred to as environment, studies variables such as structures, resources, strategies, leadership styles and more. However, in order to understand creativity in an organizational context a holistic approach is required which means that several of these aspects should be incorporated. Only a few researchers in management have attempted to construct an integral framework on organizational creativity. The most comprehensive framework, the framework of Woodman et al.(1993), incorporates theories from all four categories. More specific, process theories will 15
be used for analyzing the applied creative problem solving methods. Product and personality theories will be applied in the creativity assessment section as possible basis for assessing individual creative capacity. Finally, theories related to the place category will be used for discovering which environmental aspects influence organizational creativity. Before this framework will be described in more depth, two alternative frameworks on organizational creativity will be discussed.
2.3 Creativity f rom a st rategic perspective The field of strategic management has been dominated by various waves of dominant topics. Efficiency dominated the 1950s and 1960s, quality dominated in the 1970s and 1980s, flexibility in the 1980s and 1990s, and we now live in the age of (open) innovation. In the last two decades scholars have been increasingly paying attention to innovation as competitive advantage becomes more and more dependent on the ability to innovate. This focus on innovation brings with, although still relatively little, an increased attention on organizational creativity as organizational creativity can be seen as subset of the broader domain of innovation (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 293). This attention is mostly allocated to the development and validation of frameworks on organizational creativity that aim to describe the underlying microfoundations of organizational creative capacity. Three prominent frameworks on organizational creativity exist. Amabile (1988) was the first to introduce her componential model on organizational creativity. This model considers creativity on individual, team and the organizational level. Amabile mentions that domain-relevant skill (e.g. the basic skills that lead to competent performance in a given field), creativity-relevant skills (e.g. domain general creativity skills like cognitive style and divergent thinking abilities) and task motivation (e.g. intrinsic and extrinsic motivators) influence individual creativity. At the organizational level, Amabile (1997) predicts that 16
creativity is dependent on resources (e.g. sufficient time, training etc.), management practices (e.g. support, debate, communication, freedom etc.) and organizational motivation (e.g. orientation toward creativity and innovation). The second model on organizational creativity is the model of Ekvall (1996). The framework on organizational creativity of Ekvall (1996) lists 10 factors which collectively describe the creative climate in an organization. These 10 factors are: idea time, risk taking, challenge, freedom, idea support, conflicts, debates, playfulness/humor, trust openness, dynamism/liveliness (p. 107, 108). The third model, the model of Woodman et al. (1993), is preferred over these two alternatives as this model is most comprehensive (e.g. takes into account more variables that could influence creative behaviour) and allows for a more structured research design.
2.4 Organizational creativity In this thesis the model of Woodman et al. (1993) is used as a starting point for investigating organizational creative capacity. This framework is developed for understanding creativity in complex social settings like the firms under investigation. The framework considers creativity at three different levels: individual level, group level and the organizational level. In this thesis, the focus is on the individual level and the group level as organizational creativity is solely dependent on group creativity as illustrated in the model. Figure 2.1 illustrates the model. According to this model, individual creativity depends on antecedent conditions, cognitive style and ability, personality factors, relevant knowledge, motivation, social influences and contextual influences (p. 295, 296). Group level creativity is, besides of individual creativity, dependent on group composition, group characteristics, group processes and contextual influences (p. 296). 17
Figure 2.1 Framework on organizational creativity (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 295)
As mentioned, this framework serves as a starting point for investigating organizational creativity. Yet, two actions are executed for making this framework useful for this research. In the first place, some of the variables are categorized. This means that the variables antecedent conditions, cognitive style, and personality are categorized under the section creativity assessment. This because these variables are only relevant from a recruitment perspective as these variables could serve as indicators for individual creative capacity during job application processes. Secondly, the variables creativity training, extrinsic motivation and work pressure are added. The reason for these additions is the fact that several scientific papers have indicated that these variables influence individual creativity.
18
Some variables in the framework are related to both individual creativity and group creativity. As a consequence, the variables social influences, physical environment and resource availability are discussed in a separate section that describes variables related to both individual as well group creativity. All the variables at each level that are taken into consideration for this research are summarized in the tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. In the following sections all the variables at each level will be described in more detail. 2.4.1 Variables related to individual creativity In order to enhance individual creative capacity, firms can roughly do two things. In the first place, firms can select employees with the greatest creative capacity, or at least, select people that have the potential to behave creative. Therefore, firms should assess candidates on their creative capacity/potential during recruitment phases. The first part of this section is on creativity assessment and answers questions such as: Are there appropriate assessments available for assessing creative capacity? And if there are, how reliable are they? The second influence firms can practice is that they can facilitate their current employees in such a way that creative behavior is likely to occur. Various factors, such as creativity training, intrinsic motivation and others, are discussed after the individual creativity assessment section.
Variables related to individual creativity Woodman indication Related variable / theory Description Related authors Focus of this research? Related perspect ive Questi on? A-factor Antecedent factors Various antecedent factors such as education appear to have an influence on individual creative capacity Dantus (1999) Yes HR QS 11 P-factor Personality traits related to creativity Broad interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judgment, autonomy, intuition, self- confidence, persistence, curiosity, tolerance for ambiguity, willingness to grow, risk taking Barron & Harrington (1981), Amabile (1988) Yes HR QS 11 CS-factor Cognitive style (assessment) Cognitive style refers to the ways in which people choose to use or exploit their intelligence as well as their knowledge. Various assessments developed. Sternberg (1988), Myers-Briggs, Herrman Yes HR QS 11, 12, 17 CS-factor Creativity assessments Various assessments are developed to assess individuals` creative capacity.
Plucker & Runco (1998), Kaufman et al. (2008) Yes HR QS 11, 12 K-factor Possession of relevant knowledge Two contradictious theories regarding to the level of knowledge and its influence on creativity. However, stronger empirical support exists for the theory that assumes a linear relationship between knowledge and creativity Weisberg (1999), Hayes (1989)
No - - IM-factor Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in an activity primarily for its own sake, because the individual perceives the activity as interesting, involving, satisfying, or personally challenging Amabile (1990), Woodman et al. (1993)
Yes HR QS 11, 18 - Extrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in an activity primarily in order to meet some goal external to the work itself, such as attaining an expected reward, winning a competition, or meeting some requirement. Amabile (1990, 1993, 1997) Yes HR QS 11, 15, 16, 18 - Work pressure Intense workloads, time pressures and frequent work interruptions led professional workers to be almost half as creative as they would otherwise be Sutton (2002), Amabile (2003) Yes HR QS 17 - Creativity training A wide range of creativity training programs exist that have proven to be effective. Montouri (1992), Smith (1998) Yes HR QS 8 Table 2.1 Variables related to individual creativity 2.4.1.1 Individual creativity assessment In recent decades much efforts are spend on developing formalized individual creativity assessments. However, before these formalized assessment tools are discussed, various indicators for individual creativity potential are discussed. These variables include antecedent conditions, personality and cognitive style. Antecedent conditions Antecedent conditions refer to individual background characteristics that result in differences in individual creative capacity. The list with all antecedent conditions is potentially lengthy but can roughly be categorized into three main subvariables: biographical characteristics, socioeconomic status and educational background. Biographical influences refer to gender differences, races, handedness etc.. Although researchers found significant differences amongst socioeconomic and biographical variables, for this research they will be left out as they are difficult to measure and in some cases unethical to study. The third antecedent subvariable is educational background. This subvariable appears to have a signiIicant inIluence on individuals` creative capacity. For example, research oI Dantus (1999) shows that Montessori education fosters creative capacity of children. The practical implication oI this is that recruiters could take into consideration applicants` educational background.
Personality In the literature on creativity much is written about the shared personality of creative individuals (Martindale, 1989). The most cited article on this specific topic is the article of Barron and Harrington(1981) who found a large set of traits that often characterize creative people. These traits include independence of judgment, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, broad interests and risk taking (p. 453). Amabile (1988) extended this list by 21
adding traits like high-energy, autonomy, intuition, persistence, curiosity, tolerance for ambiguity and willingness to grow. These creativity related personality traits could be taken into consideration during recruitment phases. However, caution is required as researchers found agreement on the notion that personality traits provide only limited predictive value for future creative achievements as creative behavior is dependent on many more variables.
Cognitive style Cognitive style, or sometimes referred to as thinking style, are the ways in which people choose to use or exploit their intelligence as well as their knowledge (Sternberg & Lubart, 1993, p. 229). A cognitive style is not the same as an ability but is rather a preferred way of using the abilities one has (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p. 700). Cognitive style is either not the same as personality but represents a bridge between cognition and personality (p. 701). Some cognitive styles are more likely to demonstrate creative behavior (p. 700). In order to determine individual cognitive style various assessments are developed.
One approach to classify different cognitive styles is the theory of mental self-government initiated by Sternberg (1988). This framework describes cognitive styles on 5 dimensions: functions of mental self-government, forms of mental self-government, levels of mental self- government, scope of mental-self government and leanings of mental self-government (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p. 707). Under functions of mental self-government three main styles exist: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative style characterizes people that enjoy creating and formulating and these people do things often on their own way (p. 707). They have their own approach for solving problems and dislike pre-structures or rules. In contrast, executive style people do like rules and use existing methods and structures and 22
therefore can be seen as implementers. The judicial style characterizes people that like to judge and evaluate. Research related to creativity has shown that a creative person is likely to be a legislative individual. However, people are to some extent flexible in the usage of different styles and will try to adapt their thinking style to the task they are working on. On the other four cognitive style dimension no relationship with creative individuals is known which makes this framework not very useful from a creativity research perspective neither from a practical recruitment perspective.
The well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (hereafter MBTI) is an alternative for assessing cognitive style. This instrument is widely used in business and education and is largely based on personality traits (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p. 704). Based on the MBTI theory a specific tool for assessing creativity is developed: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Creativity Index (MBTI-CI). While making use of the MBTI-CI instrument Gouch (1981) found that creative individuals '.tend to be more intuitive ('N`) rather than sensorv ('S`), more perceiving ('P`) rather than fudging ('J`), more extroverted ('E`) rather than introverted ('I`), and more thinking ('T`) rather than feeling ('F`)` (Stevens et al., 1999, p. 461). In the study of Gough (1981) he found an average score of 235.5 on a total of 89.000 persons within a range of MBTI CI scores of -84.5 to +547.5 for highly creative individuals. Gouch(1981) estimates that people with CI scores above 350 are especially likely to show breakthrough creativity.
Another well-known instrument for assessing cognitive style is the Herrman Brain Dominance Instrument (hereaIter HBDI). This instrument determines one`s thinking proIile from responses to a 120-question survey form. The resulting profile appoints the preferred mode of thinking and processing information (Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1994, p. 5). 23
Roughly, there are 4 main profiles corresponding with the four quadrants (labeled A,B,C,D) in our brain. that are labeled A,B,C,D. Quadrant D is mostly related to creative thinking as this is related to imaginative, spatial, idea-intuitive, flexible, creative and is concerned with possibilities, change, innovation, visions and entrepreneurship (p. 5).
These cognitive style assessments are also particularly useful for composing diverse teams as cognitive abrasion is positively related to team innovativeness (Leonard & Straus, 1997). More about cognitive diversity under the whole brain theory section.
Creativity assessments Besides the various indicators for creative potential as mentioned in the previous section, various formalized creativity assessments are available. In the article of Plucker & Runco (1998) they describe the recent state of scientific creativity assessment research. They state that the divergent thinking (DT) test is the most popular technique for measuring creativity (p. 36). Divergent thinking can be conceptualized as '.involving cognitive processes that help one produce multiple responses to open-ended questions or problems (KauIman et al., 2008, p. 16). Divergent thinking is perceived as the opposite of convergent thinking in which cognitive processes are used to produce one or very few possible solutions to a given problem. Within DT tests four aspects are measured: fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration. Fluency refers to the number of responses to a given stimuli whereas originality refers to the uniqueness of responses to a given stimuli that can be measured by the statistical infrequency. Flexibility refers to the number and / or uniqueness of categories of responses to a given stimuli whereas elaboration refers to the extension of ideas within a specific category of responses to a given stimuli. 24
Most DT tests have proven to reach an acceptable level of reliability and concurrent validity (Kaufman et al., 2008, p. 39). Yet, due to mixed findings no consensus has been reached on the question whether DT tests meet a threshold level of predictive validity (Howieson, 1981; Runco, 1986a; Kogan & Pankove, 1974; Weisberg, 1993).
The second main stream of creativity assessment is the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Instead of focusing on the creative capacity of an individual, these tests focus on the creative product. Subjects are being asked to create something and experts are then asked to evaluate the creativity oI those products (KauIman et al., 2008, p. 56). Individuals` creative capacity is deducted from the collective judgement of recognized experts on the creative product. Where DT tests are standardized and scores applicable everywhere, CAT is a relative measure again the rest of the group. These independent raters typically evaluate students work on novelty, problem resolution, and elaboration and synthesis attributes of products (Kaufman et al., 2008, p. 53) Because CAT assessments are based on the actual products created by subjects and because it compares against each other, this measure should be very useful for recruitment purposes. Potential candidates can for example be faced with a case study that they have to solve. The proposed solution can be assessed on creativity from which creative capacity can be derived. Nevertheless, recruiters need to take into account that creativity could be domain specific. Still, the discussion on whether creativity is domain-specific or domain-general is ongoing due to mixed research findings (Silvia et al., 2009). The CAT technique has strong face validity, in other words, it measures exactly what it looks like it measures (Kaufman et al., 2008, p. 59). The predictive validity of the CAT technique is limited to the specific domain in which the test is taken. In case a minimum of 25
five experts are used an acceptable to high rate of inter-rater reliability will be achieved (Amabile, 1996).
The third mainstream of creativity assessments is the assessment by others (also: ABO). Although it seems to be the same as the CAT method, it is different in that it asks the raters to judge the creativity of a person as a whole instead oI the person`s products (KauIman et al., 2008, p. 84). This means that the assessment by others is based on the traits and abilities one believes the people being judged possess that are relevant to creativity and not on the creative output (p. 84). This assessment could be executed by for example teachers, peers or parents like at the CAT method. The main concern with the ABO technique is that raters often have wrong perceptions of creativity traits and associations of creativity and therefore make wrong judgements (Pearlman, 1983). The most popular ABO assessment is the Williams scale that is part of a larger assessment package used to assess gifted children. Although quite often used by educational instances, Cooper (1991) concluded that the Williams scale 'could not be recommended as an adequate assessment of the complex dimensions of creativitv` (Cooper, 1991, p. 196). This conclusion is supported by the Centre of Creative learning (2002a) as they rate both reliability and validity as poor. Also other ABO assessments appear to lack validity (Kaufman, 2008, p. 99). Kaufman therefore concludes that although ABO cannot be used on a standalone basis, it could give a valuable contribution when used in combination with other kinds of assessments (Kaufman, 2008, p. 99).
In sum, divergent thinking tests appear to be the best tool for measuring creative capacity as they meet a threshold level of validity and reliability. Nevertheless, the predictive value of DT tests remains questionable. In contrast, the predictive value of CAT assessments is proven to 26
be sufficient although it is restrained to the specific domain in which it is tested. The intuitive ABO method can be used as supplement to the two previous techniques. 2.4.1.2 Knowledge Existing knowledge is the fundamental pillar for creativity as creative ideas are always build on existing knowledge. The relationship between knowledge and creativity is a heavily debated one as there exist two contradictory theories. The first theory states that someone needs to posses deep knowledge of a specific field if one hopes to produce something novel within it. The opposing theory on the other hand states that '.too much experience can leave one in ruts, so that one cannot go beyond stereotyped responding` (Weisberg, 1999, p. 226). In other words, the second theory predicts that the relationship between knowledge and creative performance is like an inverted U-shape while the first theory predicts that the relationship is a linear with a threshold level of expertise needed for a creative accomplishment. Both theories are widely studied (Weisberg, 1999). Hayes (1989) made an important contribution regarding the first theory by investigating the time needed to reach master-level creative performance in several fields like composers, painters, poets, chess masters and scientists. Hayes (1989) found that, among all fields, that even the most noteworthy and 'talented individuals required many years, at least 10 years, oI preparation beIore they began to produce 'notable work or 'masterwork (p. 230). During their 'preparation time much oI this time is spent on internalizing what has already has been done in the discipline and acquiring knowledge and skills to perform at world-class level (p. 231). In the article of Weisberg (1999) wherein he reviews these two contradictious theories he finds that the empirical support for the U-shape theory is weak. He therefore concludes that creativity and knowledge are positively related and that a creative artist on a certain point needs to break away from his existing knowledge in order to make a creative contribution. 27
This breaking away can be done by applying knowledge from different fields that could result in a new perspective. Consider the following situation, discussed by DeBono (1967): 'For manv vears phvsiologists could not understand the purpose of the long loops in the kidney tubules: it was assumed that the loops had no special function and were a relic of the way the kidney had evolved. Then one day an engineer looked at the loops and at once recognized that they could be part of a counter-current multiplier, a well known engineering device for increasing the concentration of liquids. In this instance, a fresh look from outside provided an answer to something that had been a pu::le for a long time.` (p. 148-149) This example exemplifies the breaking away notion as mentioned above. This creative achievement can be fully attributed to the combination of knowledge from different fields and has relatively little to do with individual creative capacities or creative problem solving techniques. From practical considerations (e.g. the influence of knowledge is a research itself), it is decided to not include the knowledge variable. Because of the firm evidence of the importance of knowledge on creativity this will not harm the research as the importance is already determined. 2.4.1.3 Creativity training Montouri (1992) states that besides creating incentives, optimization of culture and other efforts for enhancing creative capacity, creativity training is a preferred one. This preference is illustrated by the fact that 25% of the organizations employing more than 100 people offer some form of creativity training (Solomon, 1990). A wide range of training programs exists in content as well as in delivery methods of the courses as for example Smith (1998) identified 172 techniques / instructual methods attributed for enhancing divergent thinking skills. In the article of Scott et al. (2004) they studied the effectiveness of the different training methods and found that creativity training is effective and beneficial for a wide variety of people. More 28
specific, training can have large effects on each of the four major criteria applied in training: divergent thinking, problem solving, performance, and attitudes and behavior (p. 381). 2.4.1.4 Intrinsic motivation Many creativity scholars perceive intrinsic motivation as a key element for creative achievements (Amabile, 1993). Intrinsic motivation can be defined as performing an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 56). The importance of intrinsic motivation is highlighted by the fact that Amabile (1997) found that a high degree of intrinsic motivation can make up for a deficiency of expertise or creative thinking skills. She explains this phenomenon by stating that a highly motivated person is likely to put great efforts into his or her task and will probably, when necessary, acquire and apply skills that are needed to complete the task (Amabile, 1997, p. 44). Although sometimes perceived as uncontrollable, Amabile (1997) found several factors that positively influence intrinsic motivation. One important factor is the freedom someone has in how to perform a dedicated task. Individuals that are restrained in the choice of their task strategy will less likely to be intrinsically motivated and will therefore be less likely to behave creative (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 300). Other factors that positively influence intrinsic motivation are challenge, certain work-group features, supervisory encouragement and organizational support (Amabile, 1997). Under work-group features fall a shared excitement over the team`s goal, willingness to assist each other, acknowledgement each other`s knowledge and perspective (p. 83). One aspect oI supervisory encouragement is a positive attitude towards suggested ideas. Organizational support can be done putting in place appropriate systems or procedures and emphasize values that emphasize the top priority of creativity (p. 84). Another way to support creativity is by stimulate knowledge sharing and by ensuring political problems do not fester (p. 84).
29
2.4.1.5 Extrinsic motivation While not mentioned in the framework on organizational creativity of Woodman et al. (1993), various literature indicated that extrinsic motivation has an influence on individual creative behavior (Amabile, 1997). Extrinsic motivation comes from outside the individual which means that tasks are executed in order to attain some separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 56). Extrinsic motivation is the opposite of intrinsic motivation whereby the individual is motivated by enjoyment or curiosity instead of monetary rewards or annual evaluations. Amabile (1990) has shown that extrinsic motivation is far less important, or in some cases even detrimental, for stimulating creative behavior. This detrimental effect can be attributed to the Iact that extrinsic motivators undermine a person`s sense oI selI-determination (Amabile, 1997, p. 45). Nevertheless, not all forms of extrinsic motivation are detrimental to creativity. Amabile (1993) found that certain forms of extrinsic motivation worked synergistically, or at last not undermining, with intrinsic motivation. Under these extrinsic forms fall reward and recognition for creative ideas, clearly defined overall project goals, and frequent constructive feedback on the performed work (Amabile, 1997, p. 45).
2.4.1.6 Work pressure Sutton (2002) observed that management scholars and practitioners alike increasingly complain about the lack of creative output by professionals. A possible reason for this lack of creativity is the increasing workloads caused by downsizing pressures of shareholders that want to increase efficiency by reducing human resources. Elsbach & Hargadon (2006) found that intense workloads, time pressures and frequent work interruptions led professional workers to be almost half as creative as they would otherwise be. These findings are supported by Hallowell (2005) and Perlow (2001) that both found that time pressure as well 30
as frequent interruptions significantly reduces individual creativity. Yet, there are a few exceptions at which high work pressures, to a certain extent, do not affect creative performance (Amabile et al., 2002). One condition for this unaffected creative performance is focus. If people can concentrate for a longer period on a single task they still can be creative despite high workloads. This requires some degree of isolation and limited collaboration. The second condition Ior 'legitimate high work pressures is when employees interpret the high work pressure as a meaningful urgency. Employees that understand why solving a problem or completing a job is crucial will be more likely to remain creative as they will Ieel they are 'on a mission (Amabile, 2002, p. 59). 2.4.2 Variables related to group creativity The previous section described variables related to individual creativity. However, individual behaviour is to a large extent influenced by the interaction with other individuals. As a consequence, several more variables need to be considered for investigating organizational creativity. This paper will now continue with describing the variables related to group creativity. An overview of the variables related to group creativity is given in table 2.2. Variables related group creativity Woodman indication Related variable / theory Description Related authors Focus of research Related perspec tive How tested? COMP Whole brain theory A innovative teams needs to have a variety of thinking styles / backgrounds that are properly combined and managed Leonard & Straus (1997), Herman (1981) Yes HR, R&D QS 18 CHAR Leadership style Amabile et al. found several specific leader behaviours that have a significant influence on subordinate`s creative performance Amabile et al. (2004), McFadzean, 1998 No - - 31
Table 2.2 Variables related to group creativity
2.4.2.1 Whole brain theory The cognitive style section described that each individual has a preferred cognitive style which means that everyone has a preference for the way to process and assimilate data. The most widely recognized cognitive distinction is between the left brainers and right brainers. Left brainers are better at performing logical, analytic and mathematical tasks whereas right brainers are much better at non-verbal ideation, intuition, holistic and synthesizing activities (Herrmann, 1981, p. 11). These differences reveal themselves in work styles and decision- making activities (Leonard & Straus, 1997, p. 113). Teams consisting of a variety of cognitive styles will approach problems from several perspectives and are likely to be more innovative then homogenous teams. Homogenous teams will have the same way of thinking and looking at problems and will less likely to questions each other`s assumptions. Solving a problem often requires a variety of approaches which means that a team should contain both right brainers as well as left brainers. In other words, a whole brain is required. Cognitive assessment tools like HBDI and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are well-able to determine cognitive styles and therefore are useful for composing whole brained teams. Besides incorporating a diversity of cognitive styles, also other individual differences like education, company tenure, nationality, age, gender and socioeconomic background appear to have a positive effect on team innovativeness (Milliken & Martins, 1996). PROC Creative problem solving techniques (CPS) Brainstorming, Brainwriting Object stimulation, Metaphors Wishful thinking, rich pictures McFadzean, 1998 Yes R&D QS 21, 22 32
2.4.2.2 Creative problem solving tools In the article of McFadzean (1998) he describes and categorizes various creative problem solving (also CPS) tools. MacFadzean (1998) divides creative problem solving methods into three categories: paradigm preserving, paradigm stretching and paradigm breaking. Paradigm preserving techniques should be used when there is no intention to introduce new elements or relationships into the problem (McFadzean, 1998, p. 311). Examples of paradigm preserving techniques are brainstorming and brainwriting. The philosophy behind brainstorming is that by restraining evaluation during the divergent phase members are allowed to build oI others` ideas that results in a greater number of novel ideas (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 303). However, overwhelming research exists that indicates that individuals produce fewer ideas in group settings (Stein, 1974). Hackman and Morris (1975) argue that this reduced performance can be attributed due to process, coordination or motivational losses. Brainwriting is a derivative of brainstorming but is based on the exchange of written ideas instead of verbal ideas. This method has the advantage of having parallel discussions. Besides that, this method negates domination by one or more individuals (McFadzean, 1998, p. 312). Paradigm breaking techniques, like the wishful thinking and rich pictures method, encourage participants to completely break down the boundaries of the problem space and to look at something entirely new (p. 311). Wishful thinking and rich pictures are paradigm breaking techniques that require more creative thinking. Wishful thinking forces the participant to look at a 'perIect Iuture and thereby examines fantasy statements and aims to develop ideas on how to achieve these fantasy statements (p. 313). This technique requires much patience, enthusiasm and experience on using this kind of CPS method (p. 313). Another technique that can be used to look at problems from a totally different perspective is the rich pictures technique. Participants are asked two draw two pictures: the first picture would be a picture of 33
how each participant would like to see the situation in the future (p. 314). The second drawing should represent how they see the current situation. After they have drawn these pictures the participant should describe their drawings separately including all the properties of the objects illustrated on the drawings. The aim is to generate new ideas from the descriptions given by the participants (p. 314). Between paradigm preserving and paradigm breaking paradigm stretching techniques exist. These techniques have the goal to encourage users to stretch the boundaries of the problem space. Object stimulation and metaphors are paradigm stretching techniques. The object stimulation technique encourages participant to view the situation from a different perspective by using unrelated stimuli (p. 312). During an object stimulation session participants have to select and describe an object in detail. The rest of the group should use this description as a stimulus to generate new ideas. The underlying idea is that these unrelated objects should enhance combinative capacity in the hope some useful idea arises. Another paradigm stretching technique is the metaphors technique. Metaphors can be used to create a fantasy situation so that a new perspective of the problem can be gained (McFadzean, 1998, p. 313). 2.4.3 Variables related to both individual and group creativity As mentioned earlier, some variables have an influence on both individual as well as on group level. These variables are summarized below in table 2.3 where after they are described in more detail.
34
Table 2.3 Variables related to both individual as well group creativity
2.4.3.1 Culture Martins and Terblanche (2003) offer a comprehensive framework (Figure 2.1) that incorporates many culture related variables that have a positive influence on creativity and innovation. The framework is divided into 5 subcategories: strategy, structure, support mechanisms, behaviour that encourages innovation and communication. Variables related to both individual and group creativity Woodman indication Related variable / theory Description Related authors Focus of research Related perspec tive How tested? SI Culture This variable is a collection of a whole range of subvariables such as strategy, structure, support mechanisms, behavior, and communication Martins & Terblanche (2003) Yes HR QS 13, 19 CI Physical environme nt Physical environment is considered to have a positive influence on creative behavior. However, scientiIic evidence doesn`t exist.
Bauer (2004), Amabile (1996), Leonard & Swap, 1999) Yes HR QS 6, 14 CI Resource availability The availability of resources like time, experts, money has a positive influence on the development of ideas of individual employees. Martins & Terblanche (2003) Yes HR QS 15 35
Figure 2.2 - Framework on culture for creativity and innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003, p. 70)
Strategy: According to Covey (1993) the mission and vision are the origins of creativity and innovation and the mission and vision statements should therefore be understood by the whole organization. From the vision and mission statement management should derive a set of strategic goals and objectives. Arad et al. (1997) found that it is important to reflect the purposefulness of the prescribed goals and objectives to ensure employee motivation.
Structure: Several scholars tried to find out which organizational structures promote innovation (Armstrong, 1995). Arad et al. (1997) found that a flat structure, autonomy and work teams will promote innovation, whereas specialisation, formalisation, standardisation and centralisation will inhibit innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003, p. 70). Other supportive features related to structure are flexibility, freedom and cooperative teamwork 36
whereas rigidity, control, predictability, stability and order will hamper innovation. Of these factors, freedom and flexibility appear to be the most important ones. Employees face freedom when they are able to choose their own problem solving strategies within loose organizational guidelines. This freedom in decision making enhances the level of empowerment which is subsequently positively related to creativity and innovation (Arad et al., 1997, p.4). Flexibility can be stimulated by frequent job rotations and flexible job descriptions (Martins & Terblanche, 2003, p 70). Another structure related factor is the formation of co-operative teams with open communication and with a variety of backgrounds (Arad et al., 1997). The interaction between members with various backgrounds could lead to renewed insights as illustrated in the example of the kidney tubules described in the knowledge section.
Supporting mechanisms: Martins and Terblanche (2003) mention several support mechanisms that should be present in organizations that aiming for innovation. The first mechanism is reward and recognition. Risk taking, experimenting and idea generation should be rewarded as then it will become the dominant way of behaving (Arad et al., 1997). This experimenting and idea generation can for example be done by allowing employees to spend 20% of their time working on their own project. Google is well-known for this construction and it appears to be very successful as there are periods at which 50% of what Google launches is initiated and developed in the 20% time part 1 . Information technology is another important supporting mechanism as this allows employees to communicate and exchange ideas throughout the company (Shattow, 1996). The last supporting mechanism that is mentioned by Martins & Terblanche (2003) is the recruitment, selection and appointment and retention of employees. This notion, and the consequences of this notion, is widespread described throughout this thesis and will therefore not be repeated in this section. 1 Marissa Mayer (VP Search products & Users Experience at Google) declared this at a conference at Stanford University June 30, 2006.
37
Behaviour that encourages innovation: Martins & Terblanche (2003) mention seven different behavioural forms that promote or inhibit innovation. The first important norm is the freedom to make mistakes. This means that mistakes should be not be ignored, covered up or punished, but should be discussed and should be seen as a learning moment (Ryan 1996; Tushman & O`Reilly, 1997). The amount of mistakes could be reduced by providing employees certain guidelines. This notion is in the same line oI thinking with the 'Strategy as simple rules theory oI Eisenhardt & Sull (2001). The 'Strategy as simple rules theory suggests that managers that are facing an abundance of (entrepreneurial) opportunities should have a couple of rules as guidelines in order to recognize and exploit the most appropriate opportunities. Rules could be about priorities, timing, or boundaries. For example, boundary rules can help managers focus on which opportunities to pursue and which are outside the pale. By setting this kind of rules the change of success will increase without losing innovativeness and spontaneity of employees. Another behavioural form is the openness to new ideas. Amabile (1995) found that fair evaluation of ideas will support and encourage creativity. Also a continuous learning orientation should support creativity and innovation (Arad et al., 1997). Practically seen this entails that employees should focus on being inquisitive, keeping their knowledge and skills up to date and in addition should communicate with people within the company as well as with people from outside the company. According to Nystrom (1990) competitiveness within innovative department plays an important role as debating and constructive conflicts will lead to information flows within the company. On the other hand one could argue that competitiveness leads to decreased knowledge transfer as employees could use their knowledge opportunistically by keeping their knowledge for their own as this will secure their interdependency. 38
Finally, Martins & Terblanche (2003) mention that support for change is positively related to creativity and innovation implying that management should create a vision that emphasises change and includes a positive attitude towards change (p. 72).
Communication: Barret (1997) stresses the importance of an organizational culture that supports open and transparent communication. An open and transparent culture means that employees should respect each other`s vision as this exposes paradoxes that could lead to new insights in case paradoxes are resolved. However, a feeling of trust is required as only then employees are willing to reveal their opinion. An open door policy between individuals as well as departments also has a positive influence on creativity and innovation as this enhances knowledge exchange between entities (Filipczak, 1997). 2.4.3.2 Physical environment Although Woodman et al. (1993) mention that physical environment influences creative behaviour, they don`t explain in which way. According to Bauer (2004), more and more companies take into account work environment as this has become integral part of their innovation strategies (p. 7). The impact of work environment on creativity and innovation has been studied in different fields including ergonomics, sociology, environmental psychology, human resources and architecture (Haner, 2005). In spite of these efforts 'the direct link between the design of phvsical space and creativitv is unproven` (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 137). Yet, Moultrie et al. (2007) have proposed several workplace designs depending on the innovation purpose. Unfortunately, their model has not been empirically tested. In spite of the unknown effect of this variable on creativity, this variable is taken into account during this research. 39
2.4.3.3 Resource availability These time pressures can be perceived as lack of resources (e.g. time). Google and many other firms solved this problem by allowing their employees to spend 20% of their time on their own projects. As this principle is already explained under the supporting mechanisms section this will not be described again. Besides time, also other resources such as budget and networks, sometimes referred to as slack resources, appear to have a positive influence on creativity and innovation (Nohria & Gulati, 1996).
40
3.0 Research method 3.1 Overall design In order to validate the framework on organizational creativity a multiple-case study research method is applied. According to Yin (2003), a multiple-case study research method is well- able to investigate both inductive and deductive research at the same time. This research has an overall deductive character as an existing framework, although modified, will be validated. However, it is possible that after conducting data analysis the framework appears to be incomplete because of newly discovered variables. These new variables will then be added to the framework and this method makes the research partly inductive. For this research, the most appropriate way of collecting data is to use the in-depth interview technique. In-depth interviewing is a method that involves conducting exhaustive interviews on individual basis with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular topic (Boyce & Neale 2006, p.3). This method allows to both test theories as well as to build theories. The interview questions will have an overall open-ended character as this allows the interviewer to test existing theories without directing the interviewee in a certain direction. 3.2 Data collection The data collection phase is divided into three sub phases; interview transcript design, case / interviewee criteria determination, and holding interviews. During the interview transcript design phase it is the aim to translate the research question into interview questions while taking into account the theoretical framework. As this research has an overall deductive character the interview questions can be derived quite directly from the variables mentioned in tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. However, because of the possible inductive character of this research 41
the interview transcript is complemented with a final open question which has the potential to reveal overlooked or new variables. The interview transcript is divided into seven sections. Each section combines questions of a certain subject. The usage of the various sections depends on the background and expertise of the interviewee in question. For example, R&D employees (e.g. scientists) will be confronted with questions on the creative problem solving tools while HR managers will be confronted with questions concerning creativity assessment. This complete interview transcript can be found in Appendix A.
In order for this research to meet a threshold level of validity, the cases and the selected interviewees have to meet certain requirements. Related to the cases, all firms should be active in dynamic and high-tech markets as this is the field of study. Six cases are considered as an appropriate number as more cases would increase the practical and research complexity while a lower number would reduce generalizability and validity. For each firm at least two perspectives are studied: HR and R&D. The choice for interviewing managers from the HR department can be attributed to the fact that the HR department is largely responsible for the development of organizational creativity as this department is responsible for recruitment (of creative individuals) and to some extent responsible for environment and support of employees (Mumford, 2000). Employees active at R&D departments, mostly scientists, can give good insight about the creative process. Therefore, I have chosen to interview R&D related employees as well. By interviewing employees from both perspectives at least all variables are at least once discussed per firm. Interviewees interviewed from an HR perspective should be involved with, or should be at least well informed on the firms` vision on creativity. The R&D interviewee should be working for at least 1 year at the R&D department as this time is required for gaining sufficient knowledge on this topic. An 42
overview of the interviewees is provided in Appendix B. For confidentiality and privacy reasons, company names as well as the interviewee names have been omitted. In total 17 interviews were held at 6 different high-tech firms. The interviews are held between November 2010 and January 2011 and took 45 minutes on average. 3.3 Data analysis During the data analysis phases similar structured tables are used as during the theoretical framework section. In these tables the results per firm per variable are summarized and therefore allow for a quick overview of the results. However, because the space within the tables is quite limited, the results section will explain the results in more detail as well.
43
4.0 Results
In the following section, case-based evidence will be used to develop an insight into the microfoundations fundamental to organizational creative capacity of innovative firms. Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 present overviews of the investigated cases and the related variables. UnIortunately, at Iirm 6 there wasn`t any R&D employee willing to give an interview on the group process variables and therefore the related variables are left blank. 4.1 Results related to individual creativity The results related to the various variables on individual level are summarized in table 4.1. Because this table offers limited space, the results will be described more elaborated in the sections below. 4.1.1 Creativity assessment All six firms use educational background as an indicator for individual creative capacity. More specifically, theses and academic publications are analyzed on creativity and innovativeness. Nevertheless, some firms indicated that caution is required as it is not always clear what the actual input of the student/employee was. Besides reviewing theses of job applicants, firms also review other publications and patents to find proof points of creativity. This method oI examining someone`s (prior) products can be perceived as Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Apart from examining applicants` prior products, Iirm 2 indicated to consider applicants professional path as well. More specifically, they are looking for scientists that Results of variables related to individual creativity Woodman indication Related variable / theory Results per firm Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Firm 5 Firm 6 A-factor Antecedent factors All Iirms have indicated to examine applicants` educational and proIessional background. ProoI points oI creativity can be Iound by examining theses, publications and patents. P-factor Personality traits related to creativity No data Looking for traits such as: capacity for self reflection, excitement, passion, intellectual curiosity, open minded Makes use of OPQ assessment and thereby looks for characteristics related to creativity Looking for traits such as: Continuous improvement attitude, intellectual curiosity, willing to cooperate, willing to become the best in the field. Looking for traits such as: out-of-the- box mentality, entrepreneurial, persistence Largely dependent on function. Although traits not specifically mentioned, sometimes taken into account as indicator for creative potential. CS-factor Cognitive style (assessment) Yes, MBTI is used No assessment. Cognitive style assessed on gut feeling and experience Assessment rarely used No assessment. Cognitive style assessed on gut feeling and experience Make use of various assessments: MBTI, Belbin, PPA, Management drivers, 10 faces of innovation No assessment. Cognitive style assessed on gut feeling and experience CS-factor Creativity assessments Informal CAT (case study or practical problem) No formal assessment. Creative capacity largely derived from scientific discussion Informal CAT (problem confrontation) and STAR No formal assessment. Creativity determined by background and answers to specific questions during job interviews. Part of assessment is on creativity and out- of-the-box. Also confronting applicant with real-case problems and role plays. Also imaginative questions. STAR No formal assessments related to creativity. Creative potential derived from personality assessments related to personality traits.
IM-factor Intrinsic motivation Applicants by asking why they are attracted to this company. Employees by giving resources in case they have a good idea Scientists are already intrinsically motivated because of their passion for their work and their 'knowledge addiction. Others are stimulated by giving freedom, responsibility and involvement Assessing applicant on passion for technology and innovation. Employees by providing primary conditions: respect, space, time, resources. Try to enhance employee intrinsic motivation by 3 factors: freedom purposefulness, enablement. During selection procedures for creative functions intrinsic motivation plays a decisive role. They need to be curious and willing to do something new. Looking for passion, enthusiasm. Past is a good indicator. Through recognition of creative behavior and resource availability they try to stimulate intrinsic motivation. 45
(employee engagement) - Extrinsic motivation Ideas are rewarded with resources: time, experts, contacts and sometimes financially (when patent pending) Extrinsic motivators such as: financial rewards, performance appraisal. Although they indicated that scientists are relatively indifferent for this Support people to become the best or reputable in their field. For example by stimulating people to do a part-time professorship at Universities. Free time / own project competitions for the best project. But also bonuses for patents (although indicated that scientists are relatively indifferent for this) Extrinsic motivators such as: financial rewards, performance appraisal. Freedom to visit scientific conferences and stimulated to become best in their field. Make use of various awards to recognize and stimulate creative behavior. Combined with monetary rewards. However, monetary rewards less important/impact to R&D departments.
Monetary rewards for good ideas/project. But in the first place rewarded with resources like time, budget and expertise. - Work pressure Recognizes the potential detrimental effect of high work pressures on creativity. No(t yet) mechanisms against it Introduced a different project team structure that avoids the negative effects of high workloads. Aware of the effect of excessive workloads. Free time mechanism to prevent negative effects. No mechanisms against excessive workloads although likely in the future. Free time mechanism (although depends on function).
Not afraid for the detrimental effect as educated people are well-able to arrange that themselves. It is allowed to take some time off to work on your idea. - Creativity training No (but likely in the future) No No (in any case very little at R&D department) Yes, although rarely Yes, training in CPS methods. No
Table 4.1 Results of variables related to individual creativity
have crossed the borders of their specific scientific field as a consequence of intellectual curiosity. The discussion section goes into further detail on this specific finding.
Besides that all firms consider educational background, they also indicated to perceive creativity related personality traits as an important indicator for creative potential. Firms look for traits that are related to creativity such as intellectual curiosity, out-of-the-box mentality, passion, willingness to grow, winner`s mentality and persistence. Three out of six firms assess these traits on gut Ieeling` while the remaining three Iirms indicated to make use oI Iormal personality assessments like OPQ or PPA. Surprisingly, only one out of six firms indicated to use cognitive style assessments as an indicator for individual creativity. Besides MBTI this firm indicated to use assessments like Belbin, management drives and 10 faces of innovation. However, not all of these assessments are cognitive style assessments as some float between cognitive style assessments and personality assessments.
Of the formal creativity assessment tools mentioned under the theoretical framework section, the consensual assessment technique (also: CAT) appears to be very popular as all firms use this method. The applied CAT method was based on products made in the past, like mentioned under antecedent conditions, as well as on 'products made during job interviews. This means that the interviewer starts a scientific discussion or confronts the applicant with a domain specific problem. Heir in the applicant is asked to come up with (creative) solutions or to give his opinion on certain topics. Firm 2 indicated this method as very effective into determining someone creative potential: 'We believe that creativity is more dependent on a mindset than a capacity. During a scientific discussion I therefore alwavs ask 'Is it possible that the theorv or assumption vou 47
draw on could be wrong or different?` Most scientists are (rather) definite in their opinion and immediatelv answer 'no`. They just assume that the paradigms and assumptions they draw on are the truth. You need to be mentally prepared that everything is just an assumption and that it could be verv different` Yet, the firms under investigation that use CAT ignore the prescribed rules and prescriptions(i.e. minimum amount of examiners) and I therefore recognize the applied method as informal CAT method. Further, only one out of six firms has indicated to use a formal (e.g. standardized assessments with strict procedures) creativity assessment tool including a creativity score. Unfortunately it was not clear on which technique this formal assessment was based as this assessment is executed by an external assessment centre. However, this is almost certain a DT test as this is the only creativity test that is able to quantify individual creative capacity. 4.1.2 Motivation In accordance with virtually all theories on creativity, firms perceive intrinsic motivation as decisive for creative behaviour. This is illustrated by the fact that all firms under investigation pay careful attention on intrinsic motivation during recruitment as well as during daily operations. During recruitment phases, two methods were identified for probing intrinsic motivation. In the first place, Iirms extensively examine applicant`s argument Ior applying Ior the function in question. Secondly, scientists are perceived more intrinsically motivated in case they have crossed the borders of their scientific field. Besides selecting candidates on their intrinsic motivation, firms also have various mechanisms in place to keep their employees intrinsically motivated. Three of the most mentioned intrinsic motivators are freedom, responsibility and involvement. This means employees are free into achieving their goals and tasks but are held responsible for their 48
results. One interviewee stated that by involving employees in the way a project is approached employees will feel engaged and will automatically be intrinsically motivated. Another firm mentioned two other mechanisms: purposefulness and enablement. Employees need to be convinced about the purposefulness of their task while enablement is about facilitation of the right work environment. By the right work environment is meant that the 'creative jobs (i.e. scientists) are not restrained or interrupted by rules oI procedures and that those can concentrate of their creative task.
Although all firms perceive extrinsic motivation subordinate to intrinsic motivation, each firm does make use of extrinsic motivators for stimulating creative behaviour. Extrinsic motivators can roughly be classified into three categories; monetary, recognition and appraisal. Regarding financial motivators, some firms pay a fixed sum of money in case a patent is pending while other firms reward individual projects or ideas. However, almost all firms indicated that the efficiency of this kind of extrinsic motivator is largely dependent on the functional department. For example, employees active at sales and marketing departments are far more sensitive to bonuses and stock options then R&D departments. Four out of six companies claimed that the eIIects oI Iinancial rewards on scientists` achievements were minimal. Besides the ineffectiveness of monetary rewards, one firm even reduced the amount of bonuses because it led to feelings of unfairness among project teams and departments. Instead, scientists are far more sensitive to reputation and recognition in their specific scientific field. One manager stated this as follows: 'Scientists are far more sensitive to recognition in their scientific field. This means being invited to speak at conferences or to publish is far more important to them. They will not become more creative or productive through financial rewards`. 49
As a consequence, some firms stimulate scientists to visit scientific conferences or to do a part-time professorship at a University. Besides external recognition, firms also use internal recognition as extrinsic motivator. This is done by annual awards like for instance the best IP award, innovation award, PHD award or own project competition. The third category of extrinsic motivators is the individual performance appraisal. Although to a great extent dependent on the function, creativity is in four of six companies included in the annual performance appraisal. This extrinsic motivator is for example embodied into considering the quantity and quality of creative ideas someone came up with. One firm goes even further by setting a goal on the amount of patent proposals an employee needs to send to the IPR department. 4.1.3 Work pressure Visions on the management of workload on creativity were surprisingly mixed. Although every company confirmed the negative effects of excessive workloads on creativity, preventive measures were diverse. At the one extreme a manager stated 'Of course vou need to find a balance. However, we believe that our highly-educated people are well able to find that balance themselves`. In other words, this company relies on the self-management abilities of their employees. Another company also was not afraid for the detrimental effect of excessive workloads as this manager stated: 'I am not reallv afraid for this. In case a scientist faces a problem it will not go out of his mind and he cannot stop thinking about it. Therefore, ideas or solutions often come up during their leisure time`. At the other extreme one biotech company did recognize the detrimental effect of excessive workload on creativity and therefore introduced a different project team structure. The firm in question indicated that each project member / scientists was so focused on the deliverables and the milestones that they were not able to think freely and were not able to investigate 50
side-paths. As a consequence, they altered team structures which means that besides the typical project team consisting out of 6 persons one or two scientists from complete different scientific fields were added. These Iree` scientists have no obligations related to milestones and deliverables and therefore are able to work out ideas that come up during the project and are able to gain more in-depth knowledge. The vice president that introduced and implemented this structure stated: 'The kev of this profect is that advanced level scientists were added from complete different scientific fields. By combining scientists from different fields and by giving them freedom we are able to approach problems from different perspectives resulting in better solutions. And it works. If we hadnt someone with a chemistry background that could experiment freely we would never came up with a certain solution that is now reflected in one of our products`. Other Iirms use the Iree time` mechanism which means a Iixed percentage oI time is allocated to work on employee projects. However, one scientist mentioned the ineffectiveness of their free time projects by stating that about 99% of the employee projects fail. 4.1.4 Creativity training While academic research has proven the effectiveness of creativity training, most Iirms don`t seem to agree on this or aren`t aware oI this. This is illustrated by the Iact that only one out oI six firms makes actively use of creativity training while four firms indicated to ignore creativity training. One firm indicated to use creativity training only very rarely.
4.2. Results related to group creativity The results related to the various variables on group level are summarized in table 4.2. The results will be described more elaborated in the sections below.
51
Table 4.2 Results of variables related to individual creativity
4.2.1 Whole brain theory All firms under investigation indicated to strive for a certain level of diversity within departments and project teams. This means they aim for diversity in cognitive style, knowledge, background, nationality and competences. The effect of this diversity is well illustrated by the following quote; 'Bv combining various scientists from different fields different ways of thinking and different perspectives will be combined. As long we are all thinking like molecular biologists we will all come up with the same ideas`. Although all firms have a shared vision on the need and effect of diversity, the method on which diversity in cognitive style is based differs among firms. Three out six companies make use of cognitive style assessments for composing teams. The remaining three firms compose their team and the individual thinking styles on gut feeling and experience. Results of variables related to group creativity Woodman indication Related theory / variable Results per firm Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Firm 5 Firm 6 COMP Whole brain theory Striving for diversity within teams and departments. Diversity in cognitive style, capacities, experience, and nationalities Striving for diversity in knowledge, background, and cognitive style. Striving for diversity. Every employee has a certain colour that relates to a way working / personality / cognitive style Striving for diversity. Composition is based on the required competences to solve a problem. Composition based on experience, no assessments. Striving for diversity in background, cognitive styles, way of working. Based on the cognitive styles assessments mentioned above. Striving for diversity. Composition based on experience and gut feeling, no assessments. PROC CPS methods Brainstorming, metaphors, external creativity (focus groups) Brainstorming and make extensive use of external knowledge Brainstorming, TRIZ, analytical approach (incl. hypothesis), external knowledge sources, crowd sourcing Brainstorming and make extensive use of external knowledge Brainstorming, TRIZ, patent mapping, external knowledge, crowd sourcing - 52
4.2.2 Creative problem solving techniques Each firm under investigation has indicated to use brainstorming as a creative problem solving tool (CPS). In addition to the CPS methods mentioned in the theoretical framework, the metaphors technique was used by one company. Further, no company has indicated to use any of the remaining CPS methods mentioned under the theoretical framework section. Nevertheless, it appears that firms use a variety of other CPS tools. In one consumer electronics company they indicated to make extensive use of external creativity by using focus groups. These focus groups regularly come up with new ideas that have the potential to improve their products. The more science based companies, like biotech and semiconductors, are drawing extensively on other external sources of knowledge like Universities, research institutes or other scientific communities. One practical form of extracting external knowledge is crowd sourcing. Crowd sourcing means making an open call to an external undefined large group. In practice this means that firms post their specific problem on a digital platform at which various experts, Universities and other companies are connected. In case another company has the knowledge and/or capabilities available to resolve the problem this company can send their solution after which a financial reward follows. Two out of six companies indicated to make use of this kind of external knowledge / creativity.
In addition to the earlier mentioned CPS methods, two firms indicated to use the TRIZ methodology of which one also used patent mapping. TRIZ is the Russian acronym for Theory for Inventive Problem Solving and is " a problem-solving, analysis and forecasting tool derived from the study of patterns of invention in the global patent literature" (Hua et al., 2006, p. 111). The TRIZ methodology relies on the notion that nearly every invention is not unique but is based on one of the 40 general inventive principles. Therefore, engineers should translate their specific problem to a general problem after which one of the 40 general 53
solutions can be applied. Hereafter the engineer can translate this general solution back to his/her specific problem.
Another firm indicated to use a highly analytical approach for problem solving wherein they make extensive use of hypothesis testing. The reasoning behind this analytical approach is their conviction on the importance of having an exact understanding of the problem they are facing. This is illustrated by a quote from a scientist that stated: 'In some cases, the greatest difficultv lies into finding out what the problem exactlv is. Therefore, in some cases, having the right problem definition means almost 50% of the solution`. Another company gave insight in their overall structure for solving problems or inventing new technologies. This highly analytic and structured approach also puts great emphasis on the problem definition phase. After the problem is exactly defined it becomes clear which expertise and capabilities are needed where after the project manager integrates people from everywhere in the company depending on the expertise needed.
4.3 Results related to both individual and group creativity
The results related to the various variables that are related to both individuals as well as group creativity are summarized in table 4.3. The results will be described more elaborated per variable in the sections below. 4.3.1 Culture The importance of culture for stimulating creativity is reflected by the fact that five out of six companies mentions creativity or innovation in their company. Besides that firms highlight the importance of creativity and innovation through their company values, some firms also 54
frequently communicate the importance of creativity by giving examples of creative behaviour and the subsequent successes that followed. To be more specific then company values, managers typically mention freedom, open doors, risk taking, information sharing, and flexibility as key components of their culture that stimulate creativity. One scientist very well illustrated their culture regarding knowledge sharing by saying: 'In this companv it is conceived as indecent to not help somebody from a different department that could use vour knowledge`. During interviews, less frequent mentioned terms related to creative culture were: safe environment, informal and a continuous improvement attitude. However, as these values and terms are largely noncommittal, better reflectors of a creative culture area couple of specific rules and processes. For example, including creative behaviour into the annual performance appraisal gives a better indicator of the emphasis on creativity. As mentioned earlier in this section, four out of six companies includes creativity in their annual performance appraisal which means they translated their company values into practice. Table 4.3 Results of variables related to both individual and group creativity Results of variables related to both individual and group creativity Woodman indication Related theory / variable Results per firm Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Firm 5 Firm 6 SI Culture Importance of innovation translated through company values. Mentioned cultural elements such as: ok to fail, freedom, creative output targets. Importance and results of creativity is communicated frequently. Mentioned cultural elements such as: open doors, little rules and procedures, continuous improvement attitude, risk taking, informal. Mentioned cultural elements such as: open, information sharing, safe environment, appreciation for creative behavior. 2 of the 4 values of the firm are related to creativity: insightful and inventive. Freedom, flexibility. Mentioned cultural elements such as: little rules and obstacles around creative functions (=enablement). Importance of creativity and innovation in code of business conduct. Mentioned cultural elements such as: freedoms in role/position, collaboration, open communication. Innovation is mentioned in company values.. Everybody in the company is made aware of the importance and need for innovation. In some cases it`s part of annual appraisal CI Physical environment Not optimized for creativity at the moment not because of lack in space. However, incorporated in future plans R&D department is more open and relaxing than other departments Workplace innovation program. Goal to align the workplaces to the strategic vision. Characterized by open spaces. Concept is being expanded throughout the company. R&D departments are more open spaces. At other functional departments less attention for physical environment optimization. Special conference/brainstorm room with art, movable walls etc. Colorful department, garden. In some departments perceived as effective and important. CI Resource availability Resources are available in case someone has a good idea and it falls within the scope of the company. Resources are available in case someone has a good idea and it falls within the scope of the company. Resources are available in case someone has a good idea and it falls within the scope of the company. In addition, availability of easy to access laboratories where ideas can be tested very easily. Resources are available in case someone has a good idea and it falls within the scope of the company. Resources are available in case someone has a good idea and it falls within the scope of the company. People are stimulated to search for the right people within the company in order to develop their ideas further. 4.3.2 Physical environment Five out of six companies considers physical environment for stimulating creativity. This means that 'creative departments (i.e. R&D) are more open or in some cases colourful in order to stimulate knowledge transfer among employees. Until now, most companies have only put efforts into improving the physical environment of R&D departments while ignoring other departments where creative behaviour is perceived as less important. Nevertheless, most companies have indicated to expand the physical environment optimization throughout the company. Still, in spite of these efforts and this upcoming trend, no interviewee could confirm the positive influence of physical environment on creativity. 4.3.3 Resource availability According to previous scientific research, the availability of resources appears to have a positive influence on creative capacity (Nohria & Gulati, 1996). Resources could be in the form of budget, expertise or time. As described in the work pressure section above, most firms consciously allocate time in order to avoid the detrimental effect of high work loads. However, besides the allocation of time, also other kinds of resources (e.g. budget, networks, expertise) are allocated in case somebody has a good idea or is making progress on his / her own project. Yet, in order to draw upon resources each firm has indicated that the idea in question needs to fall within the scope of the company. Besides often mentioned resources such as budget, time and expertise, one scientists mentioned easy to access laboratory facilities as a stimulator for creativity: 'In case I have an idea during the lunch I am able to test this immediately in the lab as our labs are easy to access. I think this is a very important stimulator for creativitv`. 57
5.0 Discussion
This paper adds to the theory on organizational creative capacity by conducting a multiple- case study that aims to reveal the microfoundations fundamental organizational creative capacity. While Teece (2007) describes the required capabilities to capture value from technological advancements, this leaves open the question which microfoundations undergird the creation of technological advancements itself. More specifically, this thesis reveals the microfoundations (e.g. skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules and disciplines) that undergird organizational creative capacity by using the framework on organizational creativity by Woodman et al. (1993) as a starting point. In addition, several more variables were added and investigated that could possibly have an influence on organizational creative capacity.
The central research question of this research is: Which microfoundations undergird organizational creative capacity? The core contributions of this research are illustrated in tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.. These tables illustrate the various structures, mechanisms, processes that undergird organizational creative capacity. In addition to that, a handful of other variables is found that firms perceive as important for organizational creative capacity. These variables were not found in the literature related to organizational creative capacity but were mentioned during interviews. For example, while several interviewees mentioned the importance of open innovation to organizational creative capacity, the current literature on organizational creative capacity ignores this. This addition, and others, will be mentioned and discussed throughout this discussion section. 58
5.1 Discussion on individual creativity level As mentioned in the theoretical framework section, at individual level firms can roughly do two things to enhance individual creative capacity. Firms can in the first place hire employees with relatively high creative capacities or at least hire employee with the potential to behave creative. Secondly, they can stimulate their current employees in such a way that they are more likely behave creative. Regarding the first measure, firms should have the ability to assess the creative capacity of their applicants where after they can select the most creative persons. 5.1.1 Creativity assessment It appears that high-tech firms do consider individual creative capacity in case an applicant is applying for a creative Iunction (i.e. scientist). In order to assess someone`s creative capacity, firms consider antecedent conditions (i.e. educational and professional background and products), personality traits related to creativity, and cognitive style. In addition, firms use informal assessment tools such as the (informal) consensual assessment tool (CAT) at which the applicant is asked to solve a specific problem / case. Scientific discussions also give insight into someone`s attitude towards change and creativity. Most firms (5 out of 6) assess creativity on gut feeling in spite of using formal assessment tools. Formal assessment tools, such as divergent thinking tests, are largely ignored. The ignorance of formal creativity assessments can be explained by four factors. The first reason is that Iirms perceive individual creative capacity to be domain speciIic and thereIore don`t attach much value on formalized domain general tests. Managers therefore argue that domain general tests like divergent thinking tests offer only limited predictive value. However, the discussion among scholars about the domain generality or domain specificity of creativity is a long lasting one caused by mixed findings (Silvia et al., 2009). The second reason for the ignorance of formal creativity assessments is because these assessments leave environmental 59
influences out of consideration. Some managers indicated that they believe that individual creativity is largely dependent on the environment in which someone is operating. Hence, they argue that these tests lack predictive value. However, a frequent heard phrase during interviews was 'the past is the best predictor`. Well considered, these two convictions are contradictious as previous made products are made in different environments and therefore have also limited predictive power. Thirdly, some firms perceive creativity as a mindset that is affected by character and background rather than a capacity. These firms considered attitudes towards 'truthIulness oI theory and their proIessional paths for understanding someone`s character and attitude. Fourth, some firms perceive formal assessments as unnecessary as they belief their gut feeling and experience for assessing creative capacity suffices. This is exemplified by the following quote: 'We usually start a scientific discussion with someone. Within five minutes I know whether someone is creative or not`. Still, while this could be true for more experienced recruiters, the danger is that people sometimes have a misconception of creativity and therefore make wrong decisions (Pearlman, 1983).
In order to gain additional insight into the usage of creativity assessments in business environments an additional interview was held at a well-known assessment centre. Although creativity assessments are used little (about 10% of all assessments include the competence creativity), this assessment center uses role plays and case studies for assessing creativity. The interviewee was not surprised by the ignorance of formal creativity assessments as he stated that certain personality traits combined with a threshold level of intelligence can give good insight into someone`s potential to behave creative. In addition to having a threshold level oI intelligence and the 'right character, motivation and attitude are also perceived as conditions for creativity. Therefore, one firm made use oI a 'coach Iunction which means that he was dedicated to the development and 60
attitude (i.e. standing open for new things and to stimulate to explore fields in which the scientist has no experience) of scientists. On this subject he stated; 'The qualitv of the science is directly influenced when scientists learn to overcome their fears and leave their comfort zone and thereby view things from different perspectives. At some people it is more difficult than others to leave their comfort :one as some are more scared for this`.
In addition to the earlier mentioned antecedent factors as indicators for creative capacity, one Iirm indicated to consider the diversity oI applicant`s proIessional path. More specifically, they prefer scientists that have crossed the borders of their field which means they prefer scientists that have studied other fields as well. This is an interesting finding as this indicates that this firm is aware of the link between associative capacity and creative capacity. Several scholars found that creative capacity is markedly correlated to associative capacity (Mednick, 1962). This can be explained by the fact that one part of the cognitive creative process consists of making associations between various elements stored in our memory (Gabora, 2002). Johansson (2006) describes various ways in which individual associative capacity can be enhanced. For example, he mentions that people that have experienced broad education in various fields are likely to have greater associative capacities. According to Johansson building deep knowledge in one field someone '.easilv becomes wedded to a particular wav of doing things. As a result, associative barriers are erected,.` (p. 51). In other words, people become restrained in their thinking patterns and have difficulties with breaking away from it. In fact, this is the exact same notion as described under the knowledge section in the theoretical framework. Heir in was described that someone needs to have deep knowledge of a certain field but also needs to have knowledge or thinking styles from another field to break away and to make a creative contribution. 61
This notion is also in the same line of thinking of whole brain-theory which states multiple thinking styles within a team will approach problems from a variety of perspective resulting into a larger number of extraordinary creative ideas. However, this is on a team level while the associative boundaries notion is on an individual level. Analyzing someone`s professional path therefore seems to be worthwhile as high associative capacities are markedly related to creative capacity. 5.1.2. Stimulating creativity at individual level Besides hiring highly creative individuals, firms can also stimulate their current employees to behave creative. Under the theoretical framework section various variables are mentioned such as intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, creativity training and work pressure that can influence creative behavior. This research reveals that firms spend much attention on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In accordance with the literature, firms enhance intrinsic motivation by giving freedom (in task execution), engage employees and by recognizing and rewarding creative behavior. An example of a reward for creative behavior is the allocation of resources in case an employee has an idea that needs to be developed further. Firms typically use financial rewards as extrinsic motivator. Next to that, firms use recognition mechanisms such as awards or offer the possibility to do a part-time professorship at an University. Less consensus was found on the two other facilitation related variables. The first variable concerns work pressure. Although all firms agree on the notion that excessive workloads are detrimental to creativity, two different preventive measures were found: the free time regulation and the alternative project structure. The first mechanism allows their scientists to spend about 15% of their time on their own project. The second mechanism entails complementing a project team with one or two scientists that are free to experiment 62
and are excluded from deadlines. One might argue that 'complete Iree scientists are financially not justified as illustrated by a quote from a manager: 'In former times we had about 10 on the 50 creative persons that had extensive freedom to experiment, however because thats not economicallv fustified anvmore it is now about 2 out of 50`. Yet, 15% free time means that a project team consisting out of 7 scientists means that in total about 1fte is spend on free time projects. This while a scientist explained that 99% of the free time projects fail. The alternative structure might therefore be a better alternative as this structure has two additional advantages. The Iirst advantage is that the 'Iree scientist is more Iocused and can experiment on things that are related to a project instead of working on unrelated ideas with a relatively low change of success. The second advantage is that by adding people with complete different backgrounds a greater diversity is achieved.
The ineffectiveness of the free time projects may be explained by a lack of focus. The importance of focusing is mentioned several times during interviews at different levels. This means focus can be on a strategic level, for example aiming to improve existing products through incorporating a new technology, or at engineering level which implies that scientists have an exact understanding of the problem they face. However, the nature of strategic focus / problems varies among industries. In more science based business, like biotech and semiconductors, the strategic focus is more straightforward as certain diseases are to be solved. This is different in certain consumer electronics departments as these questions / goals are sometimes more open ended (i.e. inventing new functionalities for products).
The creativity training variable is the other variable on which no consensus among firms was found. Although prior research has proven the effectiveness of creativity training, only one out of the six firms makes actively use of creativity training. This finding can probably be 63
explained by the perception of the effectiveness of creativity training. One director HR of a Iirm that didn`t make use oI creativity training stated: 'I dont believe in creativitv training. I think the margins for improving someones creative capacitv are marginal. You are creative or vou are not`. This conviction is the opposite of a vice president HR active in a firm that did make use of creativity training: 'Im convinced about the abilitv to enhance someones creative thinking skills by training. This means they learn to have an open attitude and to learn to combine different elements`. 5.2 Discussion on group creativity level On group creativity level, this research incorporates group composition as well as group processes variables. On the group composition variable not much discussion can take place as all firms strive for a certain level of diversity within teams and departments. More discussion can take place on the creative process variable as my findings are out of line with the existing literature. This research investigates which creative problem solving tools firms use in order to come up with creative ideas or to solve problems. In the previous section it became clear that firms face different kinds of problems (e.g. related to open- endedness of problems). The diIIerence in the origins oI the problems` Iirms Iace has implications on the creative problem solving tools they use. Yet, not in the same way as indicated by McFadzean (1998) that made a distinction between paradigm preserving, paradigm stretching and paradigm breaking methodologies. Instead, the more focused approach of science based companies at which problems / goals are better defined results in the usage of more analytical approaches (i.e. hypothesis testing, TRIZ) and thereby make extensive use of external scientific knowledge sources like Universities or open innovation platforms (e.g. crowd sourcing). Although (external) knowledge was not specifically under investigation in this research, the importance for creative capacity was underlined frequently during interviews. More specifically, the role of external knowledge and the open innovation 64
paradigm are perceived to be very important for organizational creative capacity. The open innovation paradigm entails that the boundaries between the firm and the external environment are less apparent than it used to be. This implies that not all specialist knowledge and experts are 'in-house which means that Iirms have to possess strong networks in order to tap into sources with the right knowledge and expertise (Chesbrough, 2003). The majority of firms have indicated that tapping into external knowledge sources is fundamental to organizational creativity and therefore the framework of Woodman et al. (1993) should be updated Ior the current open innovation paradigm by adding a variable such as 'link to external knowledge sources. Firms or departments that that face more open-ended questions/goals (i.e. inventing new functionalities) also make use of external sources. However, in a different way as they make use of external knowledge/creativity by incorporating focus groups that could come up with ideas for improving products. This usage of both external knowledge and creativity indicates that these firms undertake open innovation strategies.
Although not the purpose of this research, the interviews also gave insight into the origins of creative ideas. For example, one interviewee mentioned that some creative ideas arise from serendipities. Serendipity denotes an accidental discovery while looking for something else. Products like Viagra and penicillin are discoveries by accidence as scientists were looking for other products. The frequent occurrence of serendipities could have consequences for the way of working within a company. One senior scientist stated; 'Mv experience is that the most creative ideas come from serendipities. This means that you have to look very carefully at what you have found in your results. If you have results that you havent expected vou should take a careful look and dont fust ignore it. However, you have to see it`. 65
This means that scientists should be prepared Ior detecting inIormation they didn`t expect and should therefore be open-minded and should have a high state of attentiveness. These characteristics could be assessed during recruitment phases. Another mentioned source of creative ideas is challenging assumptions and theories on a continuous basis. People that take assumptions, theories and ways of working for granted are less likely to come up with creative ideas. This attitude can be achieved by selecting people with a 'continuous improvement personality or by executing a leadership style that challenges employees. 5.3 Discussion on variables related to both individual and group creativity In the theoretical framework, three variables are considered to influence both individual creativity as well as group creativity: culture, physical environment and resource availability. It is found that all firms perceive culture as an important factor for stimulating creative behaviour. The cultural elements mentioned during interviewees show great consistency with the elements mentioned in the theory section. The same consensus holds for the resource availability variable as all firms allocate resources in case an employee has a creative idea with potential. Besides the allocation of time, budget, expertise and networks one firm mentioned easy to access laboratory facilities as creativity stimulating factor. Almost all firms perceive physical environment as an important stimulator for creativity as Iive oI six Iirms 'optimizes their physical environment Ior creativity. Interestingly, no empirical evidence for the positive influence of physical environments on creativity behaviour exists. This offers an interesting future research topic. 5.4 Managerial implications An extensive literature review on (organizational) creativity verified and complemented by a qualitative multiple-case study research has resulted in findings with a high level of practical 66
usefulness. Findings on individual as well as on group level can be useful for managers active in high-tech firms. On individual level, managers can in the first place use the findings related to recruitment for creative jobs (i.e. scientists). An elaborated description on tools and indicators is given that can be used to assess individual creative capacity. Secondly, the thesis describes a variety of mechanisms that can be used to stimulate existing employees to behave creative. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, a variety of cultural elements, project team structure and other mechanisms are examples of this. At group level, a variety of problem solving tools is mentioned that draw extensively on external knowledge sources and thereby has proven to be compatible with the current era of open innovation 5.5 Theoretical i mplications
This research contributed to the field of strategic management in various ways. As explained in the literature section, (technological) invention is the main driver for competitive dynamics in high-tech markets. While the dynamic capabilities theory is well-able to explain the capabilities required for capturing value from technological advancement in these dynamic markets, this thesis reveals the roots that are fundamental to the creation of technological advancements itself. As each technological advancement is ignited by human creativity, this research investigates how firms aim to develop organizational creative capacity by conducting a multiple-case study research. For investigating organizational creative capacity this thesis took the framework of Woodman et al. (1993) as a starting point and complemented this with various variables. This research contributed in a way that it validated and complemented the framework of Woodman et al. (1993) on organizational creativity. More specific, variables (at individual level) that were not mentioned before but should be added to the framework are associative capacity and extrinsic motivation. On the group level, insight is gained into the creative problem solving tools firms that draw extensively on external knowledge sources. Next to these contributions, 67
an alternative team structure is found that avoids the negative effects of extensive workloads while increasing team diversity. 5.6 Future research Although this research leads to a better understanding of the underlying microfoundations required for organizational creative capacity, future research could give insight into other variables that potentially influence organizational creative capacity. In the first place, the effect and importance of one variable remains unclear as this variable is only partly included. In the book 'The Innovators Solution Christensen points out the crucial impact oI the incentives and the subsequent attitude of middle management in the innovation process. Most creative and entrepreneurial ideas that arise from lower levels are presented to middle management where after these middle managers shape and adjust the feasible ideas into business plans that are to be presented to senior management. However, middle managers tend to choose ideas whose market yet exists (i.e. prefer ideas that lead to improvements of current products) and thus assured while rejecting ideas that are more radical of which is not clear whether markets yet exist. The problem is that future markets for new products are small today but will be big in the future resulting in a preference by middle management for ideas that are less disruptive and are more common. The rejection of this kind of ideas can partly attributed to personal incentives of middle management that tend to favour less risky projects as they face a higher risk of failure with projects of which market size is yet unknown. Failures mean a damaged reputation that could eventually inhibit promotion and or bonuses. During this research I have tried to incorporate this filter variable by asking managers whether they were afraid about filters within their company. While some managers didn`t recognize the potential detrimental effect, others were not afraid of this potential threat. One director stated: 'Yes, of course some ideas will be filtered out, however, we have got enough ideas on the shelf. Besides that, we make use of an idea box`. This quote indicates the manager in 68
question didn`t understand the exact problem as both counter arguments don`t solve the problem. This phenomenon offers interesting material for future research. Mapping incentives of middle management combined with observing the process of idea development would give better insight into the role of middle management filters into the innovation process. Another variable of which its effect remains unclear and therefore offers a future research topic is the 'free time variable. While Google has indicated that a great deal of their new products and services are initiated and developed during free time projects, one firm in this sample has indicated that 99% of their free time projects result into nothing. The other Iirms didn`t quantiIy the eIIectiveness oI their Iree time projects. An inductive research that investigates which variables constitute to the success of free time projects would be interesting and practically useful. Some limitations on the applied research method and approach are worth to be mentioned. The inherent weaknesses of the multiple-case study research method (e.g. limited generalizability and questionable objectivity) are also applicable to this research. Next to the fact that multiple-case studies have limited generalizability, only high-tech firms were investigated which means a second limitation on the generalizability is applicable to this research. Studying the organizational creativity in for example the gaming industry could lead to other results and therefore would be interesting future research topic. 69
Appendix A
I nterview questions on organizational creativity
The questions between the brackets are questions to be asked after the preceding questions. General question(s) 1. How long have you been working in this company? And how long have you been working in this function? 2. Did you always work in a HR-related function? Do you also have other functional experience?
Questions related to the relationship between firm creativity and innovative capacity 3. Looking back at the last years, your firm can be seen as an innovating firm, could you explain which factors contributed to that ability to innovate? 4. What is the role of creative behavior in that ability to innovate? 5. What do you consider as the essential elements for stimulating creative behavior? 6. Are there specific departments or functions where you consider creativity as very (or more) important (than others)?
Questions related to individual creativity
7. If they consider individual creativity as being important: How does the HR-strategy or other practical manifestations support/reinforce individual creativity? 8. Besides recruiting creative people, people can also be trained to think creative. Are there any kind of training sessions for this? 9. Is it possible to link some prior innovations to some specific people within the firm that can be perceived as creative?
Questions related to individual creativity assessment
10. Do you get specific requests from the different departments for recruiting creative people or is it one part of the overall recruitment process? 11. If creative capacity has to be tested, what tools do you use to assess individual creativity? (Do you Ior example consider someone`s character?)
Questions related to creating an environment that stimulates creativity 12. How is creativity translated in the company culture? 70
13. How is creative behavior stimulated by incorporating the work environment? (Is the physical environment considered?) 14. Is creative behavior rewarded? And how, are there specific policies? (Are there extrinsic motivations for employees? Do they obtain command of resources?) 15. Is individual creativity part of the annual performance appraisal? (If yes, in what way?)
Questions related to various variables
16. When composing a team that for example needs to innovate, do you also take their thinking styles into consideration? (What kind of instrument do you use to determine their thinking styles?) 17. The scientific literature has written a lot about the relationship between motivation and creative behavior. And especially the differences between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. What is your vision on this? 18. Are you worried about filters within your company? (explain what I mean by filters)
Questions related to the creative process
19. In case you are confronted with a certain problem or challenge, what methods do you use for initiating ideas that could solve this problem? In other words, which creative problem solving tools do you use? 20. Do you have various kinds of creative problem solving methods? Is the applied method dependent on the type of problem? 21. If you think of your last creative idea, what was the preceding process? 22. Are there sometimes problems that you cannot solve? 23. To what extent do external sources contribute into solving problems or creative idea initiation?
Finishing question
24. Are there any other issues related to creativity that you would like to mention?
Thank you for your cooperation
71
Appendix B
Overview interviewees Reference in thesis Industry Interviewee # Function Firm 1 Consumer electronics 1 Global organisational development director 2 Manager global graduate program 3 Manager research department Firm 2 Biotech 4 VP HR 5 Senior VP Science Management & External Research 6 VP research department Firm 3 Semiconductors 7 VP HR SBU 8 Manager new business development Firm 4 IT & services 9 HR director Firm 5 Consumer electronics 10 VP Global Recruitment 11 HR Manager 12 Recruiter (R&D functions) 13 Senior Scientists 14 Senior Scientist Firm 6 Chemicals 15 VP HR Innovation SBU 16 Director Innovation SBU
Assessment center Assessment center 17 Research director assessment center 72
References
Amabile, T.M.(1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10, 123-167. Amabile, T.M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S.C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6-21. Amabile, T.M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185-201. Amabile, T.M. (1995). Discovering the unknowable, managing the unmanageable, in Ford, C.M. & Gioia, D.A. (Eds), Creative action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions & Real World Voices, Sage, London, 77-81. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to 'The Social Psvchologv of Creativitv` Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T.M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40, (1), 39-58. Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 77-87. Amabile, T.M., Hadley,C.N., Kramer, S.J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80,(8) 5261. Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L. (2003). Time pressures and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study. HBS Working Paper 02-073. Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5 32. Ambrosini, V. & Bowman, C., (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (1), 29-49. Arad, S., Handson, M.A. & Schneider, R.J. (1997). A framework for the study of relationships between organizational characteristics and organizational innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, (1), 42-58. Ardichvili, A., Cardoza, R. & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 105-123.
73
Armstrong, M. (1995). A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, 5 th ed., Kogan Page, London.
Barret, R. (1997). Liberating the corporate soul. HR Focus, 74, (4), 15-16.
Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D.M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439 476
Bauer, W. (2004). Innovations in OIfce Design as a Strategy for Survival. In Spath, D. and Kern P. (eds.) Ofhce 21 Push for the Future. Better Performance in innovative working environments, 611, Egmont vgs, Cologne/Stuttgart.
Boyce, C. & Neale, P., (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input, Pathfinder International Tool Series, Monitoring and Evaluation 2
Cane, F (1999). The artist in each of us. Namta Journal, 24, (3), 21-37 Center for Creative Learning. (2002a). Review of the Creativity Assessment Packet. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from the Center of Creative Learning website: http://www.creativelearning.com/assess/test55.htm Chen, S.A., & Michael, W.B. (1993). First-order and higher-order factors of creative social intelligence within Guilford's structure-of-intellect model: A reanalysis of a Guilford data base. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 619-641. Chesbrough H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 194-204. Covey, S.R. (1993). Innovations at four levels. Execute Excellence, 10, (9), 3-5. Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., & White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24,(3), 522537. Dantus, O. (1999). Artistic expression and the unfolding self: expressive adults, expressive children. Namta Journal, 24, 5-18. DeBono, E. (1967). New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking, Basic Books, New York. DeBono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, Harper Collins, London. 74
Dutton, D.B., & Levine, S. (1989). Overview methodological critique, and reformulation. In J.P. Bunker, D.S. Gomby, & B.H. Kehrer (Eds.), Pathways to health (pp. 29-69). Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Eisenhardt, K., & Sull, D.(2001). Strategy as Simple Rules. Harvard Business Review, 79, (1), 107-116. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105123. Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Enhancing creativity through mindless`` work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17, 470483. Filipczak, B. (1997). It takes all kinds: creativity in the workforce. Training, 24, (5), 32-40. Frensch, P.A., & Sternberg, R.J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better?. Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, 5, 157 -158. Gabora, L.(2002). Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process. Proc. Creativity and Cognition 2002, 126-133. Gough, H. C. (1981, July). Studies of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in a personality assessment research institute. Paper presented at the Fourth National Conference on the Myers-Briggs. Guilford, J.P.(1967b). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gupta, A.K. (1981). Sex differences in creativity: Some fresh evidence. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 269. Hackman, J. R. and C. G. Morris (1975), "Group Tasks, Group Interactions Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration," in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, New York: Academic Press Haley, G.L. (1984). Creative response styles: The effects of socioeconomic status and problem-solving training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 25-40. Hallowell, E.M. (2005). Overloaded circuits. Why smart people underperform. Harvard Business Review, 83, (January), 1-9. Haner, U. (2005). Spaces for Creativity and Innovation in Two Established Organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14,(3), 28998. Hayes, J. R.(1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R.Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: 135- 145. New York: Plenum Press. Hattie, J., & Fitzgerald, D. (1983). Do left-handers tend to be more creative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 269. 75
Herrmann, N. (1981). The creative brain. Training and Development Journal, 35(10), 10-16. Holly, K.A., & Michael, W.B. (1972). The relationship of Structure-of-Intellect factor abilities to performance in high school modern algebra. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 447-450.
Howieson, N. (1981). A longitudinal study of creativity: 1965-1975. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 117-135.
Hua, Z., Yang, J., Coulibaly, S. & Zhang, B.,(2006). Integrating TRIZ with Problem-Solving Tools: A Literature Review from 1995 to 2006. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 1, 111-128.
Johansson, F. (2006). The medici effect: What elephants and epidemics can teach US about innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaufman, J.C., Plucker, J.A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). (2010). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. (1974). Long-term predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests: Some negative evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 802-810.
Leonard, D. & Strauss, S. (1997). Putting your company`s whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 65-86.
Leonard, D. & Swap, W. (1999). When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Lumsdaine, E. & M. Lumsdaine, Creative Problem Solving, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1995.
Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: 211-232. New York: Plenum.
Martins, E.C. & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building Organisational Culture that Stimulates Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6,(1), 6474.
McFadzean, E. (1998). Enhancing creative thinking within organization. Management Decision, 36, (5), 309 315. 76
Mednick, S.A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Miller, P. (1987). Strategic Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. Journal of Management Studies, 7, 347-361. Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21,(2), 402-433. Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.E., Janssen, S. & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, (1), 53-65. Montouri, A. (1992). Two books on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 199203.
Mowery, D.C., & Rosenberg , N. (1989). Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313351. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39,12451264. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5,( 1 ), 1437. Nystrom, H. (1990). Organizational innovation. In West, M.A. Farr, J.l. (eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley, Chichester, 143- 161. Pearlman, C. (1983). Teachers as an informational resource in identifying and rating student creativity. Education, 103, (3), 215-222.
Perlow, L.A. (2001). Finding Time. How Corporations, Individuals, and Families Can Beneht from New Work Practices. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Plucker, J., & Runco, M. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 36-39.
Popadiuk, S., & Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26,(4), 302312.
77
Runco, M.A. (1986a). The discriminant validity oI giIted children`s divergent thinking test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 78 82.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J., (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper and Row, New York. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388. Shattow, M. (1996). Out of the blue. Electric Perspectives, 21, (3), 44-54. Silvia, P., Kaufman, J., & Pretz, J. E.( 2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3,(3), 139-148. Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 107134.
Solomon, C. M. (1990). Creativity training. Personnel Journal, 69, 6471.
Stein, M.I. (1974). Stimulating Creativity, Vol.1, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking-Penguin.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700712.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2001). Guilfords structure of intellect model and model of creativity: contributions and limitations. Creativity Research Journal, 13, (3/4), 309-316.
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York. Stevens, G., Burley, J. & Divine, R. (1999) Creativity + business discipline = Higher profits faster from new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 455 468.
78
Sutton, R. I. (2002). Weird Ideas That Work: 11,5 Practices for Promoting, Managing, and Sustaining Innovation. Free Press, New York. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, (13), 13191350. Torrace, E.P. (1969). Prediction of adult creative achievement among high school seniors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13, 223-229.
Torrance, E.P., & Prebury, J. (1984). The criteria of success used in 242 recent experimental studies of creativity. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 9, 238 -243.
Tushman, M.L. & O`Reilly, C.A. (1997). Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Weisberg, R.W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 226-250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, (2), 293-321. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.