msc thesis johan sol organizational creativity

7/27/2019 Msc Thesis Johan Sol Organizational Creativity

1/78

Organizational Creative Capacity

Exploringthemicrofoundationsfundamental to organizationalcreativecapacity

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:


2/78

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

LQIOXHQFHDFRPSDQLHVFRPpetitive 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 interviewingknowledgeable 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


3/78

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: Organizationalcreativecapacity;creativity;competitive advantage;sensing

capabilities;sensingmicrofoundations


4/78

4

Contents

Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.0Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 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 ............................................................................................................. 162.4.1 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


5/78

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


6/78

6

1.0IntroductionDuring 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

YDOXHIURP7HHFHVVHPLQDOSDSHU), 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: Whichmicrofoundationsundergird organizationalcreative

capacity?It is important to understand how organizations develop and sustain organizational

creative capacity, essentially the microfoundations associated with organizational creativity.


7/78

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


8/78

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.


9/78

9

2.0 Theoretical framework

2.

1 Dynamic

c

apabilities

& organizationalc

re

ativity

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,controllingcosts, lowering inventories, and adopting best

practiceswil l no longersufficefor long-UXQFRPSHWLWLYHVXFFHVV(Teece, 2007, p. 1346). This

notion is supported by Porter (1996) as he states: 7KHTXHVWIRUSURGXFWLYLW\TXDOLW\DQG

speed hasspawned a remarkablenumber ofmanagementtools andtechniques,total quality

managementbenchmarking,time-basedcompetition, outsourcing, partnering, reengineering

andchangemanagement. Althoughthe resulting operational improvementshavebeen

dramatic,manycompanieshavebeenfrustrated bytheir inabilitytotranslategains into

VXVWDLQDEOHSURILWDELOLW\ (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,

PDQXIDFWXULQJHFRQRPLHVRIVFDOHDUHHLWKHULQVXIILFLHQW7HHFHVWDWHVWKDWNor do

traditionalscaleeconomies in production alwayshavethedifferentiating powertheymay


10/78

10

RQFHKDG0RUHWKDQVFDOHDQGVFRSHDGYDQWDJHDUHQHHGHG (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

RSSRUWXQLW\E\FUHDWLQJRUDGRSWLQJLQQRYDWLRQVWKDWPDNHULYDOVSRVLWLRQREVROHWHthiskind

ofcompetition is asmuchmoreeffectivethan [pricecompetition overexisting products] as a

bombardment isoncomparison withforcing 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

RSSRUWXQLWLHVWKDWFRXOGLQIOXHQFHDFRPSDQ\VFRPSHWLWLYHSRVLWLRQ6HL]LQJLVUHODWHGWRWKH

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


11/78

11

that these FDSDELOLWLHVVXEVHTXHQWO\FRQVLVWRXWRIPLFURIRXQGDWLRQVdistinctskil ls,

SURFHVVHVSURFHGXUHVRUJDQL]DWLRQDOVWUXFWXUHVGHFLVLRQUXOHVDQGGLVFLSOLQHV (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 creativit\,IWKHUHZDVQWDQ\

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

IRUHQWUHSUHQHXULDORSSRUWXQLW\UHFRJQLWLRQ,QQRYDWLYHEXVLQHVVPRGHOVOLNH'HOO,QFVDQG

Wall-0DUWVDUHDOVRSURducts of human creativity and illustrate that creativity is also


12/78

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

opportunitLHV$UGLFKYLOLHWDOOLVWILYHNH\IDFWRUVWKDWLQIOXHQFHVRPHRQHVDELOLW\WR

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)URPDQLQWHUDFWLRQDlist perspective,thebehaviour of

an organism at any point intime is acomplex interaction ofthesituation andsomethingelse

thissomethingelse istheQDWXUHRIWKHRUJDQLVPLWVHOI(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


13/78

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 C reativity

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 WKHDELOLW\

to produce workthat isboth novel (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. useful,

adaptiveconcerningtaskconstraints(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


14/78

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

DLPWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHQDWXUeofthementalmechanismsthatoccur when a person isengaged

LQFUHDWLYHWKLQNLQJRUFUHDWLYHDFWLYLW\ (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,

XVHIXOQHVVDQGFRPSOH[LW\7KHLQKHUHQWZHDNQHVVRIWKHVHVWXGLHVLVWKDWWKH\GRQWWHOl

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


15/78

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 C reativity f rom a strategic perspecti ve

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


16/78

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).


17/78

17

Figure2.1 Frameworkon organizationalcreativity (Woodmanet 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.


18/78

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 relatedto individualcreativity

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.


19/78

Variables relatedto individualcreativity

Woodman

indication

Related variable /

theory

Description Related authors Focus of

thisresearch?

Related

perspective

Questi

on?

A-factor Antecedent factors Various antecedent factors such as education appear to have aninfluence on individual creative capacity

Dantus (1999) Yes HR QS 11

P-factor Personality traitsrelated 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 useor 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 9DULRXVDVVHVVPHQWVDUHGHYHORSHGWRDVVHVVLQGLYLGXDOVcreative 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 knowledgeand 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 anactivity primarily for its own sake, because the individual

perceives the activity as interesting, involving, satisfying, orpersonally challenging

Amabile (1990),

Woodman et al. (1993)Yes HR QS 11,

18

- Extrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage inan activity primarily in order to meet some goal external to thework 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 workinterruptions led professional workers to be almost half ascreative as they would otherwise be

Sutton (2002), Amabile(2003)

Yes HR QS 17

- Creativity training A wide range of creativity training programs exist that haveproven to be effective.

Montouri (1992), Smith(1998)

Yes HR QS 8

Table 2.1Variables relatedto individualcreativity


20/78

2.4.1.1 Individualcreativity 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.

Antecedentconditions

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

DVLJQLILFDQWLQIOXHQFHRQLQGLYLGXDOVFUHDWLYHFDSDFLW\)RUH[DPSOHUHVHDUFKRI'DQWXV

(1999) shows that Montessori education fosters creative capacity of children. The practical

LPSOLFDWLRQRIWKLVLVWKDWUHFUXLWHUVFRXOGWDNHLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQDSSOLFDQWVHGXFDWLRQDO

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


21/78

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.

Cognitivestyle

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


22/78

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 WHQGWREHPRUHLQWXLWLYH1UDWKHUWKDQVHQVRU\6PRUH

SHUFHLYLQJ3UDWKHUWKDQMXGJLQJ-PRUHH[WURYHUWHG(UDWKHUWKDQLQWURYHUWHG

,DQGPRUHWKLQNLQJ7UDWKHUWKDQIHHOLQJ) (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

'RPLQDQFH,QVWUXPHQWKHUHDIWHU+%',7KLVLQVWUXPHQWGHWHUPLQHVRQHVWKLQNLQJSURILOe

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).


23/78

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 assessmentsBesides 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 LQYROYLQJFRJQLWLYHSURFHVVHVWKDWKHOS

oneproducemultiple responsesto open-ended questionsor problems .DXIPDQHWDO

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.


24/78

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

HYDOXDWHWKHFUHDWLYLW\RIWKRVHSURGXFWV.DXIPDQHWDOS,QGLYLGXDOVFUHDWLYH

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


25/78

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 DVDZKROHLQVWHDGRIWKHSHUVRQVSURGXFWV.DXIPDQHWDO

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 FRXOGQRWEH

UHFRPPHQGHGDVDQDGHTXDWHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHFRPSOH[GLPHQVLRQVRIFUHDWLYLW\(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


26/78

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 WRRPXFKH[SHULHQFHFDQOHDYH

one in ruts,sothatonecannotgo beyondstereotyped respondiQJ (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

WDOHQWHGLQGLYLGXDOVUHTXLUHGPDQ\\HDUVDWOHDVW\HDUVRISUHSDUDWLRQEHIRUHWKH\EHJDQ

to producHQRWDEOHZRUNRUPDVWHUZRUNS'XULQJWKHLUSUHSDUDWLRQWLPHPXFKRI

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.


27/78

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):

)RUPDQ\\HDUVSK\VLRORJLVWVFRXOGQRWXQGHUVWDQGWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHORQJORRSVLQWKH

kidneytubules: itwas assumedthatthe loopshad nospecia lfunction and were a relicofthe

waythekidney hadevolved. Then oneday anengineer looked atthe loops and atonce

recognizedthattheycould bepartofacounter-currentmultiplier, a wellknownengineering

devicefor increasingtheconcentration ofliquids. Inthis instance, afresh lookfromoutside

provided an answertosomethingthaWKDGEHHQDSX]]OHIRUDORQJWLPH (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 C reativitytraining

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


28/78

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 Intrinsicmotivation

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

VKDUHGH[FLWHPHQWRYHUWKHWHDPVJRDOZLOOLQJQHVVWRDVVLVWHDFKRWKHUDFNQRZOHGJHPHQW

each RWKHUVNQRZOHGJHDQGSHUVSHFWLYHS2QHDVSHFWRIVXSHUYLVRU\HQFRXUDJHPHQWLVD

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).


29/78

29

2.4.1.5 Extrinsicmotivation

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

WRWKHIDFWWKDWH[WULQVLFPRWLYDWRUVXQGHUPLQHDSHUVRQVVHQVHRIVHOI-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 Workpressure

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


30/78

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

VHFRQGFRQGLWLRQIRUOHJLWLPDWHKLJKZRUNSUHVVXUHVLVZKHQHPSOR\HHVLQWHUSUHWWKHKLJK

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 creat LYHDVWKH\ZLOOIHHOWKH\DUHRQ

DPLVVLRQ$PDELOHS

2.4.2 Variables relatedto groupcreativity

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 groupcreativity

Woodmanindication

Relatedvariable /

theory

Description Related authors Focus ofresearch

Relatedperspec

tive

Howtested?

COMP Wholebrain

theory

A innovative teams needsto have a variety of

thinking styles /backgrounds that areproperly combined andmanaged

Leonard &Straus (1997),

Herman (1981)

Yes HR,R&D

QS 18

CHAR Leadershipstyle

Amabile et al. foundseveral specific leaderbehaviours that have asignificant influence onVXERUGLQDWHVFUHDWLYHperformance

Amabile et al.(2004),McFadzean,1998

No - -


31/78

31

Table 2.2Variables relatedto groupcreativity

2.4.2.1 Wholebraintheory

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

DWSUREOHPVDQGZLOOOHVVOLNHO\WRTXHVWLRQVHDFKRWKHUVDVVXPSWLRQV6ROYLQJDSUREOHP

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 Creativeproblem

solvingtechniques

(CPS)

Brainstorming,Brainwriting Object

stimulation, MetaphorsWishful thinking, rich

pictures

McFadzean,1998

Yes R&D QS 21,22


32/78

32

2.4.2.2 C reativeproblemsolvingtools

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

DOORZHGWREXLOGRIRWKHUVLGHDV 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

DWDSHUIHFWIXWXUHDQGWKHUHE\H[DPLQHV 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


33/78

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 relatedto both individual and groupcreativity

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.


34/78

34

Table 2.3Variables relatedto both individual aswell groupcreativity

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 relatedto both individual and groupcreativity

Woodmanindication

Relatedvariable /

theory

Description Related authors Focusof

research

Relatedperspec

tive

Howtested?

SI Culture This variable is a collectionof a whole range of

subvariables such asstrategy, structure, support

mechanisms, behavior, and

communication

Martins &

Terblanche

(2003)

Yes HR QS 13,19

CI Physicalenvironment

Physical environment is

considered to have a

positive influence on

creative behavior. However,

VFLHQWLILFHYLGHQFHGRHVQW

exist.

Bauer (2004),

Amabile (1996),

Leonard & Swap,

1999)

Yes HR QS 6,14

CI Resourceavailability

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


35/78

35

Figure2.2 - F rameworkoncultureforcreativity 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


36/78

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.

Supportingmechanisms: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 part1. 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.


37/78

37

Behaviourthatencourages 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 &

25HLOly, 1997). The amount of mistakes could be reduced by providing employees certain

JXLGHOLQHV7KLVQRWLRQLVLQWKHVDPHOLQHRIWKLQNLQJZLWKWKH6WUDWHJ\DVVLPSOHUXOHV

WKHRU\RI(LVHQKDUGW6XOO7KH6WUDWHJ\DVVLPSOHUXOHVWKHRU\VXJJHVWV 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.


38/78

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 UHVSHFWHDFKRWKHUVYLVLRQDVWKLVH[SRVHVSDUDGR[HVWKDWFRXOGOHDGWRQHZ

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 Physicalenvironment

Although Woodman et al. (1993) mention that physical environment influences creative

EHKDYLRXUWKH\GRQWH[SODLQLQZKLFKZD\$FFRUGLQJWR%DXHUPRUHDQGPRUH

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 WKHGLUHFWOLQN

EHWZHHQWKHGHVLJQRISK\VLFDOVSDFHDQGFUHDWLYLW\LVXQSURYHQ (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.


39/78

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).


40/78

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


41/78

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 fiUPV 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


42/78

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.


43/78

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.

8QIRUWXQDWHO\DWILUPWKHUHZDVQWDQ\5'HPSOR\HHZLOOLQJWRJLYHDQLQWHUYLHZRQWKH

group process variables and therefore the related variables are left blank.

4.

1 Res

ul ts

re

late

d to indiv idualc

re

ativity

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 C reativity 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.

7KLVPHWKRGRIH[DPLQLQJVRPHRQHVSULRUSURGXFWVcan be perceived as Consensual

Assessment Technique (CAT).

Apart from examining appOLFDQWVSULRUSURGXFWVILUP indicated to consider

applicants professional path as well. More specifically, they are looking for scientists that


44/78

Resultsof variables relatedto individualcreativity

Woodman

indication

Related

variable /

theory

Results per firm

Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Firm 5 Firm 6

A-factor Antecedent

factors

AlOILUPVKDYHLQGLFDWHGWRH[DPLQHDSSOLFDQWVHGXFDWLRQDODQGSURIHVVLRQDOEDFNJURXQG3URRISRLQWVRIFUHDWLYLW\FDQEHIRXQd by examiningtheses, publications and patents.

P-factor Personality

traits related to

creativity

No data Looking for traitssuch as: capacity for

self reflection,

excitement, passion,

intellectual curiosity,open minded

Makes use of OPQassessment and

thereby looks for

characteristics related

to creativity

Looking for traitssuch as: Continuous

improvement attitude,

intellectual curiosity,

willing to cooperate,willing to become thebest in the field.

Looking for traitssuch as: out-of-the-

box mentality,

entrepreneurial,

persistence

Largely dependent onfunction. Although

traits not specifically

mentioned,

sometimes taken intoaccount as indicatorfor creative potential.

CS-factor Cognitive

style

(assessment)

Yes, MBTI is used No assessment.Cognitive style

assessed on gut

feeling and

experience

Assessment rarelyused

No assessment.Cognitive style

assessed on gut

feeling and

experience

Make use of variousassessments: 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 practicalproblem)

No formal

assessment. Creativecapacity largely

derive

msc thesis johan sol organizational creativity

Documents