Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 15-Literature, Summaries of Benchmarking

Download Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 15-Literature and more Summaries Benchmarking in PDF only on Docsity! Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 06.10.02 Chapter 15. Creativity1 By Judith H. Heerwagen Research on organizational creativity has increased rapidly in the last decade. Not only is creativity of interest to scientific researchers, it has become a compelling topic in the popular media, with recent articles in Psychology Today (Gryskiewicz 2000), Fast Company (Dahl 2000), and in business-oriented publications such as the Harvard Business Review (Hargadon and Sutton 2000). Why this intense interest, and why now? Part of the answer comes from the nature of science and business today, especially in competitive fields where the pressure for innovation and maintaining a competitive edge has become more intense. Creativity provides the raw intellectual materials – ideas, concepts, insights, and discovery – that eventually become new theories, approaches, tools, products, and services that underlie innovation. Innovation is the adoption and social transmission of creative discovery. What is Creativity? Although creativity and innovation are closely intertwined in the public eye, they have often been studied in isolation by researchers using different methodologies and models. Creativity has been the province of psychology, with its emphasis on individuals and small groups, while innovation has been the focus of sociologists, economists, and others who take a larger, systems perspective. This separation is unfortunate, because creativity (producing something for the first time) represents “a dramatic aspect of organizational change that may provide a key to understanding change phenomena and, ultimately, organizational effectiveness and survival” (Woodman et al. 1993). Recent attempts to integrate the psychological and sociological perspectives include work by Ford (1996, 2000), Cummings and Oldham (1997), and Drazin, Glynn and Kazanjian (1999). Creativity is generally defined as useful novelty – not novelty for its own sake, but novelty that can be applied and add value to an organization’s products and services (Oldham and Cummings 1996). Creativity includes the generation of ideas, alternatives, and possibilities (Smith 1998). Creativity research has a long history in psychology, focusing on individual differences in personality, cognitive abilities, and problem-solving styles. However, recent theoretical and empirical work looks at creativity as something the brain does naturally. That is, creativity is an adaptive feature of normal cognitive functioning that evolved to aid problem solving under conditions of uncertainty. Under such circumstances, novel approaches and invention are highly advantageous (Simonton 2000; Findlay and Lumsden 1988). This perspective asserts that all human beings have the potential for creativity because we share common neural processes; however, whether the creativity is expressed or suppressed depends on the socio-cultural context, personality differences, and specific personal experiences (such as knowledge and skills). Within work settings, it is also apparent that organizational policies and practices as well as managerial behaviors influence creativity among workers. By defining creativity as useful novelty, psychologists have clearly placed the emphasis on creativity as an outcome. Others, however, are beginning to look at creativity as a process that 1 Related chapters include: Change Management, Knowledge Management; Competencies; Organizational Culture; Innovation. Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 2 06.10.02 ebbs and flows over time in response to problems that arise unpredictably (Drazin et al. 1999). In this view, creativity is intricately connected to sense-making, problem finding, and interpretation of events and situations. Although traditional approaches recognize the importance of social processes in creativity, they view social interactions as important for the generation and discussion of ideas, not for sense-making and interpretation. However, as Drazin and colleagues argue, organizational problems that require creativity are often complex, fluid, ambiguous, and occur over long time periods and thus require significant sense-making activity. In contrast, creativity research has tended to focus on bounded problems solved by small groups. Traditional perspectives also look at creativity as something that can be manipulated once the factors that promote or inhibit creativity are known. These models presume that creativity at lower levels (individual, group) aggregate to produce organizational level creativity. In contrast, Drazin et al. (1999) argue that creativity at the organizational level emerges from the process of negotiating multiple meanings and potentially competing interests between different groups within an organization. In order to understand one another, people engage in the development of joint meanings, which, in turn, motivate engagement and this generates creativity. Creativity is associated with crisis resolution that leads to renewed sense-making and a shift in belief structures. Regardless of whether creativity is considered a process or an outcome, it is ultimately linked to social processes and contexts and can be considered from a systems perspective (Csikszentmihalyi 1988). The systems perspective views the individual as the source of variation and change (new ideas) that are presented to others who then select and retain creative ideas that are used to elaborate the larger domain. The results of the elaboration are fed back to the individual and the process continues. A key question for organizational leaders is: What sparks the variation in the first place? How do creative ideas happen? What inhibits or suppresses creative ideation? To understand creativity in the workplace, it is useful to review briefly the cognitive, social, motivational, and emotional processes that influence creative problem solving. After a brief review of these factors, the situational and organizational influences on creativity are discussed. Cognitive Aspects of Creativity: Ways of Thinking, Mental Models, and Metaphors The cognitive processes that generate creative outcomes do not differ from everyday thinking (Buchanan 2001). What differs is the context in which the creative ideas arise: The context both motivates and determines the value and usefulness of the ideas. Two key cognitive processes are involved in creative problem solving: ♦ Combinatorial – producing novel combinations out of familiar ideas/things through generating and testing. ♦ Transformational – using analogical reasoning and metaphors to transfer concepts from one domain to another. Creativity also relies heavily on a sound knowledge base. As noted by Buchanan (2000), background knowledge is an essential element that distinguishes deliberate acts of creation from “accidental creativity.” Background knowledge not only aids idea generation, it also supports the valuation component of creativity; it places the idea in a context and suggests why it is important (Kuhn 1970). Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 5 06.10.02 Organizational Factors that Inhibit or Facilitate Creativity The organizational context – including the management practices, job design, and human resource policies – plays an important role in creativity. Amabile’s model of organizational creativity (Amabile 1988; Amabile et al. 1996) is one of the most widely cited in psychological studies of organizations. Although not explicitly stated, the assumption behind the model is that creativity and innovation are important for all organizations and jobs. In contrast, other researchers (Mumford et al. 1997; Shapero 1997; Shalley et al. 2000) begin with the assumption that some situations and some jobs are more likely to benefit from creativity than others. Stacey (1996) also argues that creativity is more likely to be important when it helps an individual or organization survive better in its environment. In his perspective, the “fitness landscape” for creativity and innovation is related to other people and organizations in any given environment. Ford (1996) makes a similar argument, noting that creative actions are more likely to occur when they are more “attractive” than habitual actions. He sees an inherent tension between creative and habitual behaviors. The organizational context and personal characteristics determine the movement between these two types of behaviors. Key organizational factors related to creativity include “proximate factors” that are close to daily experience (job design, managerial behaviors, training, work group diversity) and “distal factors” that are more remote, such as organizational structure and climate (Shalley et al. 2000). Proximal Factors According to Amabile (1988), complex and challenging jobs that enable workers to decide how to carry out tasks are more likely to encourage intrinsic motivation that, in turn, increases creativity. Motivation is also aided by a sense of urgency that increases the perception that the project or task is valuable and worth pursuing. In contrast to complex, challenging jobs, routine work can readily be accomplished by adhering to well-known processes and information. In such circumstances creativity may actually incur a cost if it reduces efficiency by introducing unnecessary change. Although there is widespread belief in Amabile’s perspective, there has been relatively little study of how creativity actually occurs in work settings. An exception is a recent analysis of a Japanese firm that uses a deliberate, structural approach to motivating creative problem finding and problem solving throughout the organization (Basadur 1997). The Japanese program includes three key components: monetary incentives, training/coaching, and careful alignment with organizational strategy. In order to encourage suggestions, monetary rewards were given for all implementable ideas, no matter how large or small. Small rewards were given to individuals, and large rewards were primarily given to teams. Teams were free to use the funds as desired. The program also included significant training and mentoring. Managers coached new workers in the cycle of problem finding, problem solving, and solution implementation. Their performance was evaluated in part on their ability to get workers to perform well in the idea generation program. And finally, the program itself was closely tied to strategic organizational goals. Quality circles were used to align ideas with “theme problems” identified by top management. The program had very wide participation throughout the firm and resulted in as many as 140 suggestions per person/per year. Basadur argues that the program is successful because it is highly motivating. However, the motivation comes largely from extrinsic sources, including rewards, recognition, and deliberate coaching. It is not clear from Basadur’s account whether intrinsic motivation Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 6 06.10.02 played a significant role. As pointed out by Smith (1998), intrinsic motivation is difficult to identify because it is an internal, non-conscious process. Actual measures of creativity in field studies are relatively rare. In addition to the research by Basadur (1997), Amabile and Conti (1999) used patent disclosures as an indicator of creativity. They found that patent disclosures decreased during and after a major downsizing at a large high technology firm. In this same study, the KEYS instrument showed that subjective ratings of the factors that stimulate creativity decreased significantly and ratings of organizational impediments increased. Oldham and Cummings (1996) also found evidence for the relationship between creativity stimulators (especially proximal, job related factors) and patent disclosures. Employees produced more patent disclosures when their jobs were complex and challenging and when they were supervised in a supportive, non-controlling manner. Another proximal factor influencing creativity is managerial behavior. Managers can influence creativity in workers by instilling strong values, beliefs and assumptions that encourage creativity (Meyers 1982) and by their response to critical incidents, particularly when they perceive conditions as opportunistic rather than threatening and when they are proactive rather than reactive (Tesluk, Farr and Klein 1997). Managers can also encourage behaviors associated with creativity, such as free exchange of information, diversity of opinions, open questioning, and challenging of assumptions (Nonoka 1991). As noted in the study of the Japanese firm described above, coaching and mentoring are also valuable managerial tools for promoting creativity (Basadur 1997). Managers can also influence creativity by guiding careers, maintaining group diversity and providing challenging tasks (Roberts 1997). Roberts sees these factors as far more important than creativity training, which he views with considerable skepticism. Cummings and Oldham (1997) identify supportive and non-controlling supervision as one of the most important factors influencing individual creativity. Diversity is considered by many researchers to enhance creativity (Stacey 1996; Schuler and Jackson 1987). Diversity is a broad concept and includes different disciplines, personality types, and different ways of thinking about problems, all of which are believed to lead to increased number and variety of ideas. However, diversity also has the potential to increase tension that, if not resolved successfully, can lead to organizational conflict and chaos (Stacey 1996). When working successfully, diversity creates new dialogue that counteracts existing ideas and strategies of the “legitimate system.” In fact, in Stacey’s view, creativity occurs outside of the legitimate, status quo system and is often in direct conflict with that system. Creative changes work their way into the dominant system through persuasion, political maneuvering, and ultimately, through re-education. Having stimulating co-workers also promotes creativity by adding excitement and energy and the potential for synergy (Cummings and Oldham 1997). Research on team dynamics emphasizes the potential of interactions with others to motivate, stimulate interest, add complexity, and introduce competitive pressure – all of which can lead to enhanced individual and group creativity. Hargadon (1999:137) argues that groups play a central role in organizational creativity by “creating novel and unexpected combinations of an organization’s past knowledge in ways that individuals or more formal organizational structures do not” and that group analogic reasoning plays a central role in organizational creativity. There is growing evidence that the affective context also influences creative problem solving. Creative people have been described as open to emotional experience and to exhibit high levels of positive energy (Simonton 1977). In numerous laboratory and field studies, Isen has consistently found that creative problem solving is more likely to occur when people experience positively Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 7 06.10.02 toned moods than when they are in neutral or negative moods (Isen 1990; Isen and Baron 1991; Isen et al. 1987). The studies show that positive moods also have numerous beneficial impacts on cognitive and social functioning, including more efficient decisional processes on complex tasks and more innovative approaches to negotiations. Creative problem solving is less likely when people are depressed, unhappy, or stressed. This is because negative moods or stress tend to restrict attention and lead to stereotypic responses (Gazzaniga 1988). The relationship between emotional functioning and creativity raises questions about how work relationships, events, and other factors in the work environment influence positive and negative mood states and what the consequences are for creative efforts (Ford 1996). At the present time, little is known. Isen’s own research has used traditional experimental paradigms in which mood is manipulated, often through the presentation of a small gift (such as candy). Distal Factors Distal factors, which set the overall context in which creative behaviors occur, include resources, organizational adaptability, organizational culture, and levels of internal strife. . Resources are important not only for functional support, but also because having an adequate level of resources for the task/project influences workers’ perceptions that the project is valuable and worthy of organizational support. Resources include financial support as well as time, physical space, and information (Mumford et al. 1997). Another distal factor influencing creativity is organizational adaptability. Highly adaptive organizations tend to be more supportive of creativity (Basadur 1997). Adaptability means continually and intentionally changing routines to find better ways of doing business. Adaptable organizations engage in “opportunistic surveillance” – which means scanning the environment to anticipate new opportunities and problems and responding with new methods and approaches. Organizations that show low adaptability exhibit high levels of control through centralized decision making. Rigid adherence to rules and regulation tends to have negative impacts on creativity. This may occur through numerous mechanisms. For instance, Amabile ((1998) argues that centralized decision making and adherence to rules and regulations reduces intrinsic motivation, with corresponding decreases in creativity and the ability to cope with problems and demands, both of which detract from well-being. Centralized decision-making and control also reduces information flow through an organization. To the extent that creativity requires free access to information and knowledge, this will dampen the generation of new ideas. The degree and nature of internal strife in an organizational also influences creativity. Strife and conflict increase stress that, in turn, generates use of familiar strategies and behaviors rather than novel approaches (Gazzaniga 1988). Stress also generates negative moods and anxiety, which, as noted above, inhibit creative functioning. Stacey (1996) also looks at conflict as a potential inhibitor of creativity. Ironically, however, conflict is also a generator of creativity. Drawing on chaos theory, Stacey argues that creativity arises from the conflict between an organization’s existing system and an emerging “shadow” system. The existing “legitimate” system in an organization tends to be conforming and hierarchical. Creativity originates in the organization’s shadow system that is characterized by diversity, ambiguity, contention, and speculations brought about by new ideas that threaten the current norms and values. Stacey argues that an organization at the edge of chaos doesn’t display chaos itself. Instead it shows stability and then sudden change to a new form that has been slowly evolving in the shadow system. Bureaucratic organizations with high levels of centralization are difficult to move in a creative direction because they have restricted information flow and few Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 10 06.10.02 References Allen, Thomas J. 1977. Managing The Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allen, Thomas J. 1973. Communication Networks in R& D Laboratories. R&D Management 1:14-21. Amabile, Teresa. 1998. How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review Sept-Oct:77-87. Amabile, Teresa. 1988. A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. In Research in Organizational Behavior. B. M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.). Vol 10: Pp. 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, Teresa and Regina Conti. 1999. Changes in the Work Environment for Creativity during Downsizing. Academy of Management Journal 42(6):630-640. Amabile, Teresa, Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron. 1996. Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39(5):1154-1184. Antonovsky, A. 1987. The Salutogenic Perspective: Toward a New View of Health and Illness. Institute for the Advancement of Science 4(1):47-55. Basadur, Min. 1997. Managing Creativity: A Japanese Model. In R. Katz (Ed). The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation: A Collection of Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. Buchanan, Bruce. 2001. Creativity at the Metalevel. AAAI –2000 Presidential Address. AI Magazine, Fall. www.findarticles.com Chi, M. 1997. Creativity: Shifting Across Ontological Categories Flexibly. In Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. T. Ward, S. Smith and J. Vaid (eds.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Claxton, Guy. 2000. Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind. How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less. New York: Harper Collins, Ecco Press. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1988. Society, Culture and Person: A Systems View of Creativity. In The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. R.J. Sternberg (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and J.W. Getzels. 1988. Creativity and Problem Finding. In The Foundation of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education. F.H. Farley & R.W. Neperud (eds.). New York: Praeger. Cummings, Anne, and Greg R. Oldham. 1997. Enhancing Creativity: Managing Work Contexts for The High Potential Employee. California Management Review 40(1):22-38. Dacey, John S. and Kathleen H. Lennon. 1998. Understanding Creativity: The Interplay of Biological, Social and Psychological Factors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dahl, Cheryl. 2000. Have You Seen the Five Faces of Genius? Fast Company October:54-62. de Bono, Edward. 1970. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. New York: Harper-Collins. Drazin, Robert, Mary Ann Glynn, and Robert Kazanjian, 1999. Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective. Academy of Management Review, April. Available URL: www.findarticles.com. Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 11 06.10.02 Dunbar, Kevin. 1997. How Scientists Think: On Line Creativity and Conceptual Change in Science. In Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Processes and Structures. T.S. Ward, S.M. Smith and J. Vaid (eds). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association. Findlay, C. Scott, and Charles J. Lumsden. 1988. The Creative Mind: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Discovery and Innovation. Journal of Social and Biological Structure 11:3-55. Ford, Cameron. 1996. A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains. Academy of Management Review. 21(4):1112-1142. Gardner, Howard. 1982. Art, Mind and Brain: A Cognitive Approach to Creativity. New York: Basic Books. Gazzaniga, M. 1988. Mind Matters. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gryskiewicz, Stanley S. 2000. Cashing in on Creativity at Work. Psychology Today September/October:63-65. Guilford, J.P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hargadon, Andrew B. 1999. Group Cognition and Creativity in Organizations. Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Vol 2. Pp. 137-155. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Hargadon, Andrew, and Robert Sutton. 2000. Building an Innovation Factory. Harvard Business Review May-June:157-166. Hillier, Bill, and Jullienne Hanson. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, Bill, and A. Penn. 1991. Visible Colleges: Structure and Randomness in the Place of Discovery. Science in Context 4(1):23-49. Isaksen, Scott. 1983. Toward a Model for the Facilitation of Creative Problem Solving. Journal of Creative Behavior 17(1):18-31. Isen, Alice M. 1990. The Influence of Positive and Negative Affect on Cognitive Organization: Some Implications for Development. In Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion. N.L .Stein, B. Leventhal, T. Trabasso (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Isen, Alice M., and Robert Baron. 1991. Positive Affect as a Factor in Organizational Behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior. L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Isen, Alice.M.,,Kimberley A. Daubman, and Gary P Nowicki. 1987. Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(6):1122-1131. Kelly, Robert and Janet Caplan. 1997. How Bell Labs Creates Star Performers. In The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation: A Collection of Readings. R. Katz (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Kirton, M.J. 1976. Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61(5):622-629. Kogan, N. 1983. Stylistic Variation in Childhood and Adolescence: Creativity, Metaphor, Cognitive Styles. In Handbook of Child Psychiatry. P.H. Mussen (ed). Volume 3. New York: Wiley. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ch 15 Creativity 06.10.02.doc 12 06.10.02 Mumford, Michael D., Deborah Whetzel, and Roni Reiter-Palmon. 1997. Thinking Creatively at Work: Organizational Influences on Creative Problem Solving. Journal of Creative Behavior 31(1):7-17. Oldham, Gregg R. and Anne Cummings. 1996. Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors. Academy of Management Journal 39(3):607-635. Pelz, Donald C., and Frank Andrews. 1977. Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates of Research and Development. New York: Wiley Penn, A., J. Desyllas, and J. Vaughan. 1999. The Space of Innovation: Interaction and Communication in the Work Environment. Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design 26:193-218. Roberts, Edward. 1997. Managing Invention and Innovation: What We’ve Learned. In The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation: A Collection of Readings. R. Katz (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Schrage, Michael. 1995. No More Teams. New York: Doubleday. Shalley, Christina E., Lucy Gilson, and Terry C. Blum. 2000. Matching Creativity Requirements and the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave. Academy of Management Journal 43(2):215-243. Simonton, Dean K. 2000. Creativity: Cognitive, Personal, Developmental, and Social Aspects. American Psychologist 55(1):151-158. Simonton, Dean K. 1977. Creative Productivity, Age, and Stress: A Biographical Time-series Analysis of Ten Classical Composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 791-804. Stacey, Ralph D. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler. Sternberg. Robert. 1988. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Gerald F. 1998. Idea-Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active Ingredients. Journal of Creative Behavior 32(2): 107-133. Tesluk, Paul E., James L. Farr, and Stephanie A. Klein. 1997. Influences of Organizational Culture and Climate on Individual Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. 31(1): 27-41. Woodman, Richard W., John E. Sawyer, and R.W.Griffin. 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review 18(2):293-321.