Describe a situation within your organization foresight on creativity, innovation within ethical model.

1

Organizational creativity: a systems approach.

By Gerard J. Puccio and John F. Cabra

Excerpted from The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, 1st Edition by Kaufman, J.; Sternberg, R.

Copyright 2010 by Cambridge University Press. Reprinted by permission of Cambridge University

Press.

Introduction

Organizational creativity has been defined as “the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service,

idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system” (Woodman,

Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993, p. 293). The creative act is sufficiently complex when carried out by an

individual alone, such as the artist, photographer, writer, and so on; imagine the heightened amount of

dynamism reached when individuals attempt to create within organizational systems. This chapter

explores some of the fundamental factors that influence the manifestation of creativity in the

workplace. We take a systems approach in that we endeavor to understand the complex whole as it is

formed and influenced by individual components. We begin by discussing the reasons why there has

been a burgeoning interest in organizational creativity. The remainder of the chapter uses a systems

model as a framework to review literature relevant to organizational creativity.

Why Organizational Creativity Is Hot

In his 1975 article “The creative organization,” Hitt observed that “although voluminous research exists

in the field of creativity as it relates to the individual, little has been done relative to organizational

creativity and its necessity” (p. 283). How things have changed! There are now numerous journal articles

on the topic of organizational creativity. Indeed, there is a refereed journal dedicated to this very topic.

Established in the early 1990s, the aim of the Creativity and innovation management journal is to bridge

“the gap between the theory and practice of organizing imagination and innovation.” Commensurate

with the growth in journal publications, there also has been an increase in books on organizational

creativity authored by those in university centers (i.e., Bilton, 2007; Davis & Scase, 2001; DeGraff &

Lawrence, 2002; Hargadon, 2003; Thompson & Choi, 2005; Zhou & Shalley, 2008).

Why has there been an increased interest in organizational creativity? There are at least two main

trends that appear to have fostered growth in this area of creativity research. One trend responds to the

need for organizations to adapt quickly to change; the other trend reflects a concern for innovation.

Though interconnected, we briefly discuss each trend in turn.

There is no escaping the fact that we live in an ever-changing world and that large-scale change occurs

at an ever-faster pace. This is exemplified by the fact that more than half of the major, life-altering,

technological and social innovations introduced to the world came into being in the last 200 years

2

(Albery & Yule, 1989; Henry, 2001; Makridakis, 1989). Before the 1800s it would have been possible,

indeed probable, that many generations could live without experiencing the impact of a single

significant technological or social invention. In contrast, a person born in the early 1960s would have

already experienced the impact of civil rights, space exploration, organ transplants, personal computers,

mobile phones, the internet, cloning, genetic engineering, e-mail, and much more.

Organizations and their members have not escaped the impact of transformative change. According to

Hitt (1975), organizations exist to provide solutions to society’s needs and problems. As society evolves

at a breakneck pace, organizations are forced to respond quickly; those incapable of change will quickly

find themselves replaced by organizations that are more responsive. As Hitt (1975) observed, “In order

to avoid extinction, organizations must change and adapt to changes in order to remain viable. To do so

requires utilization of all available resources, especially the most creative – the human resource” (p.

284). Organizations do not adapt to change; rather it is the people within organizations that are required

to change. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of studies and reports have identified creative

thinking and creative problem solving as fundamental workplace skills. One of the earliest studies to do

so took place in the 1980s (Carnevale, Gainer, & Meltzer, 1990). This three-year-long national study

sought to identify the skills necessary for success in the workplace. Analysis of the data yielded by a

cross-industry sample of organizations led to the identification of seven distinct skill sets. One of the skill

sets, labeled “adaptability,” included two specific skills related to creativity – creative thinking and

problem solving. Similarly, a U.S. Labor Department report focusing on the skills essential for workers to

be productive in the new millennium included the following thinking skills: thinking creatively, making

decisions, solving problems, knowing how to learn, and reasoning (SCANS Commission, 1991).

The call for creative thinking in the workplace has continued. A group of leaders from public and private

organizations, such as American Society for Curriculum Development, Dell, Educational Testing Service,

Microsoft, and Verizon, published a report in 2008 entitled 21st century skills, education &

competitiveness (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). As with previous studies and reports, this

more recent list of work skills once again highlighted the central role creativity plays in today’s

organizations. The specific creativity-related skills articulated in this report were solving complex,

multidisciplinary, open-ended problems; creativity and entrepreneurial thinking; and making innovative

use of knowledge, information, and opportunities. Why are creativity skills so highly touted in today’s

organizations? As noted earlier, in order to survive, organizations must provide solutions to society’s

changing needs, and the increased pace of change places a premium on employees’ creativity skills. No

longer do employees spend their entire careers dedicated to the refinement and elaboration of a single

product or service. There has been a dramatic decrease in product life cycles. For instance, Hunter and

Schmidt (1996) reported that manufactured products are subject to fundamental redesign every 5 to 10

years. In high-tech industries, this time line shrinks to every 6 to 12 months. This observation led

Williams and Yang (1999) to conclude that “today, workers must adapt quickly as they switch from

performing one specialized task to performing another equally specialized task” (p. 375). It would seem

generally accepted that for organizations to adapt, they must have employees who are flexible,

adaptive, imaginative, and able to tolerate ambiguity – in short, they must be creative.

3

Another major trend that has fostered a burgeoning interest in organizational creativity, especially

among those in the private sector, has been a desire to become more innovative. It is now widely

argued that to remain competitive, organizations must not only adapt to change but also drive change

through innovative business practices, processes, products, and services. Apple, Google, Toyota, General

Electric, Microsoft, Pfizer, Disney, SONY, and other leading companies understand that their bottom-line

success relies on an ability to innovate. Janzen (2000) suggested that “after the age of efficiency in the

1950s and 1960s, quality in the 1970s and 1980s, and flexibility in the 1980s and 1990s, we now live in

the age of innovation” (p. 3). As clear evidence for this focus on innovation, a global survey of 2,468

senior executives carried out by the Boston Consulting Group revealed that 66% of the respondents

ranked innovation among the top three strategic priorities for their companies (Andrew, Sirkin, Haanæs

& Michael, 2007). Similarly, Vardis and Selden (2008) reported 55% of the 513 executive level officers

they surveyed identified innovation as one of their top three current strategic priorities.

Schumpeter (1934) provided one of the first systematic definitions of innovation. In his view, innovation

was the successful commercialization of new combinations, such as new materials and components, the

introduction of new processes, the development of new markets, and the creation of new organizational

forms. A contemporary description of innovation was extracted from IBM’s in-depth interviews of 765

chief executive officers (IBM Global CEO Study, 2006). These executives outlined three discrete forms of

innovation: business model innovation (i.e., new structures or financial models); operational innovation

(i.e., new ideas that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of processes and functions); and

product/service/market innovation (i.e., new products, services or “go-to-market” activities). Many now

make the case that innovation, in whatever form, does not occur without creativity. For example,

Amabile, Burnside, and Gryskiewicz (1999) suggested that “creativity is the crucial ‘front-end’ of the

innovation process; before innovation can happen, the creative ideas must be generated by individuals

and teams so that they can be successfully implemented” (p. 1). Taking a broader approach, Rickards

(1996) suggested that creativity is required throughout the entire innovation process. He specifically

noted that

the linear model mind-set always results in the assumption that creativity “exists” at the

front end of a two-stage idea generation and implementation innovation process. This

article makes the case for a long-needed break with this assumption. In the new

paradigm, ideas and actions occur and interact as long as innovation is being pursued.

Creativity continues as long as action continues. This is not just desired, it is necessary

for as long as the innovation processes continue in a competitive environment in the

absence of perfect knowledge about outcomes of actions. (p. 24)

The Connection between Creativity and Innovation: Some Empirical Evidence

It is one thing to suggest that creativity is theoretically linked to innovation, and quite another to

demonstrate empirically that creativity indeed spawns innovation. A small number of studies have

endeavored to demonstrate the practical link between organizational creativity and innovation. Perhaps

the earliest study to undertake this question was carried out by Blau and McKinley (1979). In this study,

the researchers examined, among other variables, whether the work motif, that is, the main design

4

ideas, pursued by an architectural firm predicted the extent to which the firm’s work was objectively

perceived as being innovative (e.g., industry awards for innovation). Results indicated that work motif

was a significant predictor of innovation awards; in particular, firms whose design ideas challenged the

constraints outlined by their clients generated more innovative architectural designs. Moreover, Blau

and McKinley discovered that the most innovative firms “rarely standardize design concepts from

project to project, and attempt continually to evolve new and creative solutions to particular problems”

(pp. 216–217).

Bharadwaj and Menon (2000) carried out a study in which they examined the specific kinds of creativity

found in organizations and their impact on innovation. These researchers broke creativity down into two

specific areas, individual creativity mechanisms, defined as activities individual employees pursued on

their own to develop personal creativity, and organizational creativity mechanisms, or the practices and

formal procedures adopted by organizations to promote creative behavior. These researchers then

compared the amount of innovation reported across organizations. Bharadwaj and Menon’s findings

showed that the highest levels of innovation, as reported by employees, were found among those

organizations that were identified as having high amounts of both individual and organizational

creativity mechanisms. Although Bharadwaj and Menon concluded that both types of creativity

contribute to innovation, they suggested that “organizational creativity mechanisms seem to have a

stronger association with innovation performance” (p. 430).

Where Bharadwaj and Menon (2000) relied on employees’ perception of innovative performance, Soo,

Devinney, Midgley, and Deering (2002) ranked some 317 firms on innovation and then compared the

variables that contributed to innovation, as well as the financial benefits associated with innovation. An

analysis across these organizations showed that the most innovative firms were those that were most

active in using creativity to generate new knowledge. Specifically, Soo et al. concluded that “creativity in

problem solving is the main driver of new knowledge creation and innovation” (p. 145). These

researchers also examined the benefits of innovation and found that the most innovative firms enjoyed

significantly greater market share and return on assets. These findings support the important role

creativity plays in fostering innovation and the tangible benefits organizations derive from innovation.

Models of Organizational Creativity

At the very beginning of this chapter we offered a passing comment about the complex nature of

organizational creativity. Figure 8.1 presents a model useful in understanding the nature of

organizational creativity. Originally offered by Puccio, Murdock, and Mance (2007), we believe the

creative change model, which utilizes a systems approach, provides a useful framework for reviewing

the sets of variables related to organizational creativity. Relating this model to organizations, innovation

comes about as the result of the interaction among people, the processes they engage in, and the

environment in which they work. The person facet in this model refers to individual skills, background,

experience, personality, knowledge, motivation, and so forth. Process relates to the stages of thought

people engage in when working alone or with others to creatively address predicaments and

5

opportunities at work. The environment relates both to the psychological and physical setting in which a

person works. Puccio et al. (2007) suggested that it is the interplay among these variables that leads to

the formation of an intangible or tangible product (i.e., solution to a problem, expression of a new idea,

development of a new service, an original product concept, an invention, etc.). Not until the product of

creative thinking has been adopted is creative effort fully realized – change has been adopted, at least

temporarily. When adopted internally, these creative changes can lead to cost reduction, improved

policies or procedures, new business models, and so forth. Products with an external focus result in a

change in the marketplace, such as the successful introduction of an innovative product or service. This

is an iterative model, as the adoption of an internal or external change has a subsequent impact on the

organization and thus potentially influences people, processes, and the environment in that

organization.

The literature review found in the remainder of this chapter is organized around this model. We

selected this model because it subsumes the oft-referred to four fundamental aspects of creativity,

namely, person, process, product, and environment (see Brown, 1989; MacKinnon, 1978; Rhodes, 1961;

Stein, 1968), which also appear in many organizational creativity models (see Schoenfeldt & Jansen,

1997). To these core elements of creativity we add leadership. Recent literature has especially

emphasized the impact leaders have on group and organizational creativity (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel,

Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, in press 2009; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993;

Sosik, 1997; Sternberg, 2003), and in their review of various organizational creativity theories,

Schoenfeldt and Jansen (1997) comment on the need to include leadership in interactionist models of

organizational creativity. The remainder of this chapter explores the research literature related to the

main elements in this model that interact to yield a creative product or outcome within the workplace,

specifically person, process, environment, and leadership.

Person

Perhaps the area that has received the greatest attention within the field of creativity studies has been

the examination of the qualities, skills, traits, and other attributes that distinguish highly creative

individuals from their less creative counterparts. Many of the pioneering creativity researchers, such as

MacKinnon (1962), Torrance (1974), Barron (1969), and Guilford (1970), dedicated their research to the

distillation of those factors that set creative people apart. It is not our intention to summarize the

extensive literature available on the creative person; instead, we focus on the specific factors that

predispose someone to be successfully creative within the organizational context. Here Amabile’s

(1983a, 1983b, 1988) research stands out.

Amabile has carried out a series of investigations that have examined the role individual creativity plays

with respect to organizational creativity. Amabile (1988) could not have been clearer about the crucial

nature of employees’ creativity and its relationship to innovation when she summarized some of her

early research:

6

The entire process of individual creativity must be considered as a crucial element in the

process of organizational innovation…. It is individual creativity that provides the raw

material for organizational innovation and, therefore, individual creativity must be

central to the organizational model. (p. 150)

This statement reinforces the position that organizational innovation does not happen without the

emergence of creativity at an individual level. To that end, Amabile interviewed employees from a

variety of work settings to unearth the individual factors that contributed to creative accomplishment in

the workplace (Amabile, 1988; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1988). The following list summarizes the qualities

associated with individual creativity: various personality traits (e.g., persistence, curiosity, and energy);

self-motivation; special cognitive abilities; risk-orientation; expertise in the area; qualities of the group;

diverse experience; social skill; brilliance; and naiveté. Positive affect can now be added to this list of

individual factors that promote creativity. A recent study by Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and Staw (2005)

found a simple-linear relationship between positive mood and peer-rated creativity.

This investigation, in conjunction with other studies carried out by Amabile (1987), led to the

formulation of a componential model of individual creativity. The model comprises three core features:

domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and intrinsic task motivation. To create, an individual

must understand his or her discipline, job, or field. Domain-relevant skills refer to knowledge, technical

skills, and special talents associated with one’s area of work. Domain-relevant skills are necessary but

not sufficient for creativity to occur. To produce work that is original, individuals must also possess

creativity-relevant skills, such as suspending judgment, self-discipline, perseverance, and nonconformity.

Finally, to achieve creative outcomes the employee must be highly motivated. As Amabile (1988) noted,

“No amount of skill in the domain or in the methods of creative thinking can compensate for a lack of

appropriate motivation to perform an activity” (p. 133). Motivation toward a task can be sorted into

three categories: no motivation, an intrinsic orientation (i.e., pursuing a task for its own sake), and an

extrinsic orientation (i.e., focusing on reasons external to the task, such as rewards, expected

evaluation, and competition). In general, individuals who are engaged in a task for intrinsic reasons are

more likely to generate creative outcomes, whereas an extrinsic focus tends to undermine creativity.

Dewett’s (2007) recent study helped provide insight into the motivation-creativity relationship in the

workplace. Dewett’s research demonstrated that increased levels of intrinsic motivation among

research and development (R&D) personnel enhanced risk taking and experimentation, which in turn

positively impacted individual creativity. It should be noted that over time Amabile has revised her

thoughts about the deleterious effects of extrinsic motivation. Under certain conditions extrinsic

rewards can serve to accentuate intrinsic motivation (see Amabile, 1993; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998).

Chuang (2007) tested the applicability of Amabile’s model with some of the most innovative companies

in Taiwan. Twelve high-level managers involved directly in innovation efforts participated in in-depth

interviews. These companies included Toyota, Fubon Bank, and Tong-yi Starbucks. According to Chuang,

the analysis revealed, as predicted in Amabile’s model, that individual factors, such as employee

creativity and mindset, were directly related to organizational innovation. Additionally, Chuang found

that the inclusion of organizational (i.e., organizational resources, culture and structure) and

environmental factors (i.e., customers, technology, competitors, etc.) strengthened Amabile’s model. As

7

Chuang suggested, “Individual, organizational, and environmental factors mutually complement and

interact with one another; they affect the organizational innovation process” (p. 886). These findings

support the contention, as outlined in this chapter, that models of organizational creativity must take a

systems approach and should consider the interaction among the fundamental facets of individuals, the

surrounding environment, and the stages of the creative process. Ford (1995) put forward a similar

argument, stating that he believes “this love affair with creators has led researcher [sic] to focus too

narrowly on characteristics of individuals that lead them to commit creative acts” (p. 21). Based on this

assertion, Ford proposed that the creative act could be likened to a crime. That is, creativity involves

motive, means, and opportunity. To underscore the importance of the latter variable, Ford noted that a

positive work environment can even serve to draw out creativity among those who would not ordinarily

pursue creative acts. Amabile’s own research acknowledges the crucial influence the work environment

has on employee creativity (Amabile et al., 1999; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1988). The next section

reviews some of the literature that has delineated the aspects of environment that are conductive to

creativity in the workplace.

The Creative Work Environment

Over the years, research in the field of creativity has transitioned from a fairly narrow focus on creativity

as an individual quality to a concern for the impact of the environment on creative behavior. MacKinnon

(1978) referred to this area of inquiry as the “creative situation” and described the purpose of this line

of research as the identification of “those characteristics of the life circumstances and of the social,

cultural, and work milieux that facilitate or inhibit the appearance of creative thought and action” (p.

52). Since early efforts to explore creativity in organizational contexts, researchers have sought to

understand how factors associated with the work environment affect employee creativity (Abbey &

Dickson, 1983; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1988; Ekvall, 1983; Rickards & Bessant, 1980; Siegel &

Kaemmerer, 1978). These efforts have culminated in lists of attributes of the work environment that are

believed to have a profound influence on employee creativity. Table 8.1 summarizes some of the

dimensions determined to be apposite to a creative work environment. In some cases, these lists

correspond directly to variables included in well-established and widely used measures of the work

environment, most notably Amabile’s KEYS (Amabile et al., 1999), Ekvall’s Creative Climate

Questionnaire (Ekvall, 1996), and Anderson and West’s Team Climate Inventory (1998).

Table 8.1: Comparison of Dimensions Deemed to Be Important to the Creative Environment

Ekvall & Tangeberg- Andersson (1986)

Rickards & Bessant (1980)

Siegel & Kaemmerer (1978)

Amabile, Burnside, & Gryskiewicz (1999)

VanGundy (1987)

Challenge

Support for Ideas

Dynamism

Playfulness

Management Style

Communication

Reward System

Support for Creativity

Tolerance of Differences

Personal Commitment

STIMULANTS:

Organizational Encouragement

Supervisory

Autonomy

Performance Reward Dependency

Risk-taking

8

Debate

Conflict

Trust

Freedom

Pressure of Work

Achievement

Risk-taking

Encouragement

Work Group Supports

Sufficient Resources

Challenging Work

Freedom OBSTACLES:

Organizational Impediments

Workload

Pressure CRITERION SCALES:

Creativity

Productivity

Support for Creativity

Personal Commitment

Top Management Support

High Responsibility for Initiating ideas

Job Security

Moderate Degree of Ambiguity

Basadur (1987)

Cabra & Joniak (2006)

Anderson & West (1998)

Soriano de Alencar & Bruno-Faria (1997)

BARRIERS:

Limited Time

Limited or Invisible Funds

Inadequate Upward Communication

Inadequate Downward Communication

Physical Environment

Inadequate Contact with Technical Activities

Organizational Structure

Lack of Technical Critique

Low-Risk Taking

Lack of Creative Processes and Training

Resources

Trust

Responsiveness

Leadership Style

Freedom

Synergy

Dynamism

Idea Time

Self Confidence Building

Support

Organized Creativity

Influence

Management

Norms

Belonging

Sense of Equity

Response to Social, Political, Cultural Conditions

Envy/ Jealousy

Vision

Participative Safety

Task Orientation

Support for Innovation

STIMULANTS:

Challenges

Colleagues’ Support

Freedom & Autonomy

Organizational Structure

Organizational Support

Physical Environment

Salaries & Benefits

Support from the Boss

Technological &Material Resources

Training OBSTACLES:

Boss

Characteristics

Lack of Equipments & Other Material Resources

Lack of Training

Organizational Culture

Organizational Structure

Personal Relationships

Physical Environment

Political & Administrative Influences

Salaries & Benefits

Task Characteristics

Volume of Tasks

Work environment is a broad, all-encompassing, term. As scholars have closely examined conditions

found in the work environment, more specific constructs have emerged that are subsumed under this

general, catchall category. We review some of the constructs that have been related specifically to the

work environment; we progress from broad to more concrete constructs. We begin our review with

national culture.

National Culture

9

National culture is defined as the traditions, values, symbols, heroes, and rituals that shape behavior

and cultivate desired perceptions of the world (Adler, 2002). Hofstede (2001) stated that “culture can be

defined as the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influence a human group’s response

to its environment” (p. 10). Rudowicz (2003) argued that sociocultural systems cannot be separated

from creative output. Ng (2001) provided a detailed description of how Western and Eastern cultures

have differential effects on individuals’ psychological make-up and, as a consequence, determine how

easy or difficult it is for individuals to be creative within their native culture. According to Ng, Eastern

cultures emphasize control by the environment (i.e., conformity, harmony, etc.), whereas Western

cultures focus more on autonomy and individuality. As a result, Ng suggested that Asians are more likely

to develop a psychological make-up that includes such qualities as cautiousness, self-criticism, and

conservative values, which makes it more challenging to engage in creative behavior.

With increased globalization, more and more organizations are crossing cultural boundaries. Consider

German automaker Daimler’s purchase of Chrysler, or more recently, the Belgian company InBev’s

acquisition of Anheuser-Busch. These expansions bring together different cultures, which may give rise

to conflict, especially if attempts are not made to grasp and address the integration of different norms

and traditions (Lubart, 1999; Rapaille, 2001; Westwood & Low, 2003). Such differences are likely to

relate to dissimilar approaches, perceptions, and values as related to creativity. For example, Mostafa

and El-Masry’s (2008) study of 125 future marketing managers illustrated how Egyptian and British

managers differed in their attitudes about organizational barriers to creativity. A 17-item Barriers to

Creativity measure was used to examine differences in perceived obstacles to organizational creativity

between the two populations. The barriers measured by these items included such factors as risk

aversion, fear of failure, time pressure, and management rejection of suggestions. The overall results

revealed significant differences on 16 out of the 17 items. Mostafa and El-Masry provided descriptions

of how some of the underlying cultural differences, especially the individualistic nature of Western

cultures versus the collectivistic orientation found in Egyptian society, might explain their findings. Given

these differences, these authors suggested that management practices with respect to creativity must

vary according to the culture. Where freedom, self-directed decision making, and an overall focus on the

outcome are beneficial in Western cultures, the high power distance of Arab cultures might require

managers to provide more direction, particularly in regard to how a team approaches a task and the

strategies used to achieve the desired outcome.

A majority of the research into the conditions of work environments conducive to creativity has been

carried out in organizations in North America and Europe. Cabra, Talbot, and Joniak (2005) undertook a

study to explore the creative work environment in Colombian organizations. These researchers did not

presume that previously identified dimensions would be relevant to the Colombian employees’

experience and therefore took a qualitative approach, thus allowing the most pertinent factors to

emerge. Their results revealed environmental factors in keeping with past research, such as Idea Time,

Freedom, and Trust. However, they discovered a number of dimensions that had not been identified in

previous research, such as Envy/Jealousy, Financial Support (a subscale under the general heading

Support), and Influence Management Norms. With respect to Financial Support, Cabra, Talbot, and

Joniak discovered that material incentives in Colombian organizations brought about innovation,

10

suggesting that extrinsic motivation can propel employee creativity when unmet basic needs weigh

heavily on an organizational member’s mind.

It is generally accepted that work environments that feature autocratic leadership styles will stifle ideas

and creativity (Miller, 1988). In contrast, in their qualitative study Cabra, Talbot, and Joniak (2005) found

that some interviewees perceived directive leadership behaviors as being helpful to workplace creativity

so long as the leader was respectful and benevolent. Hofstede (2001) reported that those in collectivistic

societies, such as Colombia, are expected to sacrifice their personal goals for the sake of group goals,

and thus a more directive style of leadership is embraced.

In their study of 1228 individuals in 30 countries, Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan (1995)

determined that those who preferred avoiding uncertainty were more likely to desire idea champions to

aid them in navigating ideas through the organization; idea champions are typically savvy at

maneuvering ideas through a firm’s political process. Shane et al. found similar results when they

examined additional cultural values, namely, high power distance and collectivism. Organizations in

countries that valued a greater distance between those who wield power and those who do not favored

the use of idea champions, as was the case for those employees in collectivistic societies.

The few studies mentioned here have important implications concerning cross-cultural deployment of

creativity research, models, and concepts. Westwood and Low (2003) identified three problems

associated with the application of creativity concepts across cultures. One problem concerns the

tendency to force universalistic interpretations of creative processes, structures, and functions. Second

is the tendency to laud one approach to creativity and innovation in a particular culture, while devaluing

a perspective on creativity that already exists in another. The third problem relates to fallaciously

bolstering differences through simplified explanatory models. In their review and critique of cross-

cultural issues pertinent to creativity, Westwood and Low concluded that “culture can and does impact

on creative and innovation processes, but the relationship should not be considered universalistically,

simplistically or unreflexively” (p. 235).

External Environment

Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall, and Britz (2000-2001) defined the external environment as “any condition or

situation that is outside the organization itself (e.g., the market, global financial conditions, government,

the larger political and social system, technological and scientific developments) but can exert an

influence on the organization’s performance” (p. 173). Conversely, organizations generally exert little

influence in regard to conditions found in the external environment. Unlike cultural values and

traditions, which are developed over long periods of time and are not easily changed, the external

environment is more temporal. Political and social conditions can emerge and go away, such as in the

case of changes in governmental leadership or an economic downturn.

In an extensive study of cities throughout the United States, Florida (2002) examined factors that

contributed to a municipality’s ability to attract creative talent; suggestive in his findings were social and

political dynamics that fall outside the control of organizations yet do much to ensure a ready pool of

highly creative workers. According to Florida (2002), creative people “prefer places that are diverse,

11

tolerant and open to new ideas” (p. 223). Additionally, Florida’s research into the “creative class”

showed, among other variables, that such workers desire places that afford a socially rich lifestyle, offer

structured opportunities for social interaction, provide authentic experiences, and are tolerant of

diverse ethnic groups, ages and sexual orientations.

On a wider scope, other studies have suggested that a country’s governmental policies, processes, and

decisions can have deleterious effects on organizational creativity. De Soto (2000), for example,

reported on the extensive challenges to establishing a legal business in Latin America. He examined the

process steps required to register a garment shop in Lima, Peru, which, after following all prerequisites,

took 289 days, with an average of 6 hours of effort per day. In Hungary, for example, Inzelt (2003)

maintained that policy makers created practices that hampered Hungary’s transition process to a

postsocialist economy. Hungarian banks, for instance, placed too many conditions on loans taken out for

industrial R&D and created funding mechanisms that undermined innovation.

As for the United States, Kao (2007) has argued that there is a need for a national innovation policy to

improve our innovation process, a process that currently is trumped by bureaucracy and resources that

are siphoned elsewhere to more reactionary types of initiatives. Estrin (2009), former chief technology

officer at Cisco Systems, provided a cogent argument for the important role government plays in igniting

and sustaining creativity and innovation in organizations:

Our nation’s leaders decisively influence the health of the country’s Innovation

Ecosystem. Politicians influence day-to-day business processes through laws and

regulations. They control funding and policy that directly affect our educational system

and the research community…. Federal and state policies have a significant impact on

the Ecosystem. Legislation, SEC regulations, litigation rules, healthcare requirements,

and tax incentives all affect the ability of businesses to innovative effectively. (pp. 49–

50)

South Korea provides a good example of a country that has enacted a series of policy measures to

integrate relationships among academia, industry, and the public research sector. Its government has

further refined legal and institutional conditions to supplement R&D efforts, and South Korea is now one

of the largest investors in R&D worldwide (Chung, 2003). For further information on ways in which

countries can encourage innovation, see Forbes and Wield (2002), Edquist and Hommen (2008), and Kao

(2007).

Organizational Culture

As in national culture, organizations over time create and preserve values, traditions, and beliefs. What

delineates organizational from national culture is its reach. That is, organizational cultures within a

national culture vary. Google, for instance, may espouse an open and informal organizational culture,

whereas General Motors may value a more closed and formal culture. Thus, organizational culture is

confined, whereas national culture is far-reaching and may affect many organizations. Lundy and

12

Cowling (1996) provided a straightforward definition of organizational culture when they stated that “it

is the way that things are done around here” (p. 168). Organizational traditions and beliefs can be

reinforced by organizational structures (e.g., centralized, decentralized, virtual) and by physical space

(e.g., mobile furniture, corporate playgrounds, workspace visibility).

In regard to organizational culture and creativity, Martins and Terblanche (2003) identified five major

factors related to organizational culture that promote creativity: 1) an innovation strategy that explicitly

focuses on the development and implementation of new products and services, which is derived

through an organization’s vision and mission; 2) the organizational structure, which includes such

variables as flexibility, freedom, and cooperative teams; 3) organizational support mechanisms, such as

reward and recognition programs, as well as availability of resources (e.g., time, information technology,

creative people); 4) behavior that encourages innovation, consisting of response to failure, idea

generation, spirit of continuous learning, risk-taking, competitiveness, support for change, and conflict

management; and 5) open communication.

Amazon.com provides a good example of an organizational culture that is conducive to creativity.

Amazon.com subscribes to a customer-centric strategy (Burrows, 2008). A centrally held belief at

Amazon.com is that they should not imitate their competitors, as this approach would produce

reactionary creativity. Therefore, employees are encouraged to experiment and find new ways to

provide added value to customers. Google is another excellent example of an organizational culture that

supports workplace creativity. Its organizational structure is informal; lava lamps and large rubber balls

can be found in the workplace. Fun and play are encouraged. Its offices were designed around clusters

to promote the flow of information. Additionally, Google provides each of its engineers 20% of their

work time to experiment with their ideas (Elgin, 2005, October 3).

The importance of organizational culture in regard to organizational creativity was reinforced by the

Boston Consulting Group’s survey of senior managers (Andrew et al., 2007). When asked about the

obstacles to innovation, 38% of the 2,468 senior managers identified a risk-averse corporate culture as

the number one barrier to innovation in their organizations.

Organizational Structures

Organizational structures relate to the hierarchy found within an organization; as such, they outline

relationships among organizational components and communicate lines of responsibility and authority.

Lafley and Charan (2008) documented several different structures within one company, Procter and

Gamble (P&G), designed to promote innovation. Future Works make up a multidisciplinary unit run by a

general manager. Its mission is to seek discontinuous ideas that can lead to a new business that is

adjacent to an existing category or one that runs across several category businesses. A sponsor is

assigned to the innovation, which assures the innovation has a home and a champion. Another structure

is the New Business Development (NBD) organization. Whereas Future Works can cross business

categories, the NBD targets a specific unit. Innovation project teams are charged with developing and

pipelining innovations that improve existing products and are funded by the respective business units.

13

The External Business Unit (EBU) explores ideas outside of the organization. Ideas can come from

vendors, other organizations, entrepreneurs, and other outside sources. EBUs serve as brokerage

houses. Innovation Hot Zones are simulated homes and supermarkets or any other setting where P&G

products are likely to be housed. They are located around the world at P&G locations or in locations

owned by partners and other retailers. An ethnographic approach is employed to gain insight from

watching consumers. These observations are used to generate new product concepts. Another structure

is called Connect and Develop. This is an internet network-based organizational structure that taps into

all of P&G’s relationships, such as retirees, other companies, retail customers, suppliers, nonretail

customers, and its competitors.

Holt (1987) provided further thoughts about how to structure organizations and teams in a way that

increases the likelihood of innovation. In his paper, Holt discusses such structures as matrix

organizations, the independent project team, and the venture team. And for empirical studies on the

relationships among organizational structure, creativity, and innovation, see, for example, Prakash and

Gupta (2008), Freeman and Engel (2007), and Sumanski, Kolenc and Markic (2007).

Climate

An examination of Table 8.1 shows that the dimensions of the work environment represent a cross-

section of various environmental concepts reviewed here. For example, communication and reward

systems, which can be considered part of the organizational culture (Martins & Terblanche, 2003), are

highlighted by a number of scholars (Basadur, 1987; Rickards & Bessant, 1980; VanGundy, 1987).

Basadur’s (1987) dimensions include specific references to organizational structure and physical setting.

In their study of Brazilian organizations, Soriano de Alencar and Bruno-Faria (1997) cited organizational

structure, salaries and benefits, physical environment, and training among those work environment

dimensions most closely related to creativity. A large number of the dimensions found in Table 8.1 seem

to align most closely with what has been referred to as “climate.” “Culture” and “climate” are often

used interchangeably, as have been the dimensions associated with these environmental constructs, yet

some have argued that these are conceptually distinct aspects of environment (Glick, 1985; Isaksen,

2007). Isaksen and Ekvall (2007) offered a simple point of differentiation when they noted that climate is

what organizational members experience, whereas culture is defined as what organizational members

value. Climate consists of the behaviors, feelings, and attitudes that distinguish life in an organization

(Ekvall, 1983). Ekvall (1983) posited that “each organization member perceives the climate, and can

describe it in light of his or her own perception” (p. 2). Some have been critical of the use of the term

“climate.” Guion (1973) suggested that climate is a broad concept that has been loosely defined, and

Glick (1985) maintained that climate is a generic term that targets many dimensions and consequently

makes the concept almost useless. As a remedy, Glick (1985) proposed that the most effective use of the

term is to frame it within a targeted area of analysis or concern (e.g., climate for job satisfaction,

security, production, safety, or creativity).

14

One of the leading scholars with respect to the climate for creativity has been Ekvall (1983, 1996, 1997).

Ekvall (1983) suggested that climate affects how organizational members communicate, solve problems,

make decisions, handle conflicts, learn, and motivate, and thus can be reflected in the efficiency and

productivity of the organization. Ekvall identified 10 dimensions related to a creative climate, namely,

Dynamism, Challenge, Freedom, Trust and Openness, Idea Support, Conflict, Debate, Idea Time,

Playfulness/Humor, and Risk-Taking. Using his measure of the creative climate, the Creative Climate

Questionnaire, Ekvall has demonstrated significant differences between organizations and units within

organizations with respect to their creative output. In one of his most elaborate studies, Ekvall (1991)

had independent researchers from a business school apply their model for assessing innovation to 27

different organizations. The application of the innovation criteria enabled the researchers to place each

organization into one of three categories: innovative, average, or stagnant. Employees in these

organizations also completed Ekvall’s climate measure. The results were clear. The most positive

climates for creativity were found among those employees in organizations identified as being

innovative. Not surprisingly, the perceptions of the most oppressive work climates were found for those

employees in organizations that had been identified as being stagnant. For other studies that have

examined the efficacy of Ekvall’s dimensions, see Ekvall and Ryhammar (1999), Isaksen et al., (2000-

2001), and Sellgren, Ekvall, and Tomson (2008).

Anderson and West (1998) developed the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) to measure work-group climate

for innovation. The TCI targets team development initiatives that are meant to foster creativity. This

measure assesses four climate factors: Vision (the extent to which clarity exists between team goals and

visions); Participative Safety (the extent to which shared decision making exists in teams and the

environment is perceived as nonthreatening); Task Orientation (the extent to which team members

share similar concerns regarding excellence in quality of task performance); and Support for Innovation

(the extent to which practical support is provided to new ways of doing things). The TCI was created

using items extracted from other measures, such as the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (Siegel &

Kaemmemer; 1978), and its psychometric properties have been evaluated by other researchers (see

Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). Additionally, the TCI has been translated and tested in other languages,

such as Norwegian and Swedish (Mathisen, Einarsen, Jørstad, & Brønnick, 2004).

Physical Space

As innovation has climbed the strategic priorities list in organizations, there has been greater attention

given to the physical features within an organization and how workspaces might be designed to inspire

creative thinking. It would seem that some organizations recognize that the physical structures created

under the mechanistic models of organizations are not appropriate in the innovation age. IDEO, a

California-based design firm, has garnered great attention by showcasing its nontraditional physical

spaces. At IDEO, employees are encouraged to create their own workspaces; here, employees’ work

areas are adorned with prototypes from past projects, artifacts from their favorite hobbies, and

knickknacks. As Kelley (2001), general manager of IDEO, observed, “This may sound a bit extreme, but

companies that depend on the creativity of their staff give them free reign when it comes to space” (p.

15

125). At Oticon, a midsize Danish manufacture of hearing aids, workers are able to concentrate on any

project and are free to join any team (Ewing, 2007, August 20). Desks and filing cabinets are not fixed.

They are pushed to new locations, reconfigured into new spaces for workers to organize themselves.

Workers band together around natural leaders as a way to be drawn to the most exciting projects. The

United Kingdom’s Royal Mail has established an award-winning innovation lab that features white

curved walls suitable for capturing ideas, musical instruments, on-line brainstorming technology,

material for prototype construction, movable furniture, digital recording devices, and a team of expert

facilitators.

The creation of creative workspaces appears to be outpacing scholars’ ability to document and describe

the nature and impact of such spaces. That said, a few authors have offered their reflections on the

physical setting for creativity (Haner, 2005; Kristensen, 2004; Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Moultrie et al.,

2007). Lewis and Moultrie (2005) maintained that physical structures provide a competitive advantage

to organizations that leverage these spaces to improve their performance and innovation efforts. The

marketplace has become highly dynamic, and thus organizational spaces that are designed well are apt

to be more responsive and flexible than those that are not. Kristensen (2004) emphasized that physical

spaces influence an employee’s emotional well-being. A positive association with the surrounding

physical space, therefore, will enhance creative work. Haner (2005) posited that physical space can

serve as a source of inspiration and motivation. An attractive space can spark innovation strategies and

signal to employees that creativity is expected.

Lewis and Moultrie (2005), using a case-study approach, examined three UK based innovation

laboratories. Preliminary findings indicated that physical structures were conducive to innovation when

malleable – space that can be broken-down, changed, or reconfigured at a moment’s notice in response

to an organizational need or marketplace demand. Similarly, Haner (2005) argued that a hybrid space,

one that can accommodate both private and group work, as well as divergent and convergent processes,

is optimal for innovation. Finally, Moultrie et al. (2007) provide a framework that helps practitioners and

researchers better understand the roles, goals, and various design features of physical spaces that

promote organizational creativity. Each component in their framework contains a list of variables

organizational leaders should consider in designing space that promotes creativity.

Process

Organizations can hire creative talent and develop a creative work environment, but these actions do

not guarantee creative outcomes. To increase the probability of successful creative thinking, many

organizations have adopted management practices, outlined creative methods and strategies that are

applied in groups, and introduced training programs all designed to help employees more effectively

and skillfully engage in the creative process. The aim here is to undertake deliberate approaches that do

not leave creativity to chance. At its core, creativity is an applied area of study – many scholars and

practitioners seek to understand better how creativity comes to fruition so that ultimately it can be

16

facilitated, directed, and nurtured in a manner that increases the likelihood that individuals and groups

in organizations can quickly generate creative breakthroughs to problems.

Can the creative process be directed at will? In surveying engineers, Ekvall (2000) discovered that,

indeed, organizations can adopt particular practices that promote creative thinking. Among the

engineers in his study, 88% reported that the use of project groups and continuous improvement

methods enhanced creativity, and 85% indicated that the application of creative problem-solving

methods in meetings had positive effects as well. Where Ekvall conducted a survey across many

organizations, Mahmoud-Jouini and Charue-Duboc (2008) conducted a case-study analysis of a new unit

created to pursue discontinuous innovation (i.e., radically new ideas that depart from existing products

and services) within one automotive company. These researchers were particularly interested in the

design and organizational creativity processes that enabled this unit to achieve its mission. These

authors carefully documented the creative process followed by this team, from its inception through to

the identification and subsequent funding of five exploratory projects deemed likely to succeed. Based

on this research, a detailed description emerged in regard to the activities subsumed in each stage of

this team’s creative process (i.e., scope definition, knowledge sharing, conceptual design and

embodiment design). Furthermore, Mahmoud-Jouini and Charue-Duboc outlined four broader

organizational practices that supported the eventual success of this team: 1) the creation of a broad

scope for the innovation unit; 2) the dual role of the members of the unit, dedicating a percentage of

their time to the project while carrying out ongoing work responsibilities, which encouraged boundary

spanning; 3) the back and forth flow between knowledge and concept development during the creativity

process; and 4) the role and cross-divisional nature of the exploratory projects that emerged from the

innovation unit.

Further evidence for the value of adopting deliberate creative-process strategies can be found in a study

briefly cited earlier in this chapter (Bharadwaj & Menon, 2000). Recall that Bharadwaj and Menon

compared individual versus organizational creativity mechanisms and found that the latter had a

stronger relationship to innovation performance. The organizational creativity mechanisms included

such practices as a widely shared process for creative problem solving, formal creativity and idea-

generation programs, a designated innovation center, and facilitators assigned to lead idea-generation

efforts. Based on their findings these researchers called on managers “to formalize creativity approaches

and techniques in organizations to improve innovation output” (p. 431). Moreover, they suggested that

organizations look at “creativity expenditures as an investment, rather than treat it as an expenditure”

(p. 431).

Through the years numerous creative processes have been developed and subsequently adopted in

organizations. These creative processes offer models and techniques that can be followed by individuals

and groups to improve creative output. These creativity methodologies are designed to provide

employees with structured approaches that endeavor to make the creative process less mysterious and

more easily facilitated in a predictable and repeatable manner. We briefly review some of the more

widely known creative process models and approaches.

17

Creative Problem Solving

Originally developed by Osborn (1953), creator of Brainstorming, Creative Problem Solving is one of the

earliest, most widely adopted and thoroughly researched creative-process models (Isaksen & Treffinger,

2004; Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005). In the creativity literature, readers will come across lower-case

references to the term “creative problem solving.” In such situations, the author is usually making a

general reference to efforts undertaken by individuals and teams to resolve open-ended problems

through creative thinking, such as the studies carried out by Ekvall (2000) and Bharadwaj and Menon

(2000) cited above. In contrast, when capitalized as a proper noun, “Creative Problem Solving” (CPS)

refers to the name given to the creative-process model introduced by Osborn (1953) and enhanced by

others mainly associated with the International Center for Studies in Creativity at the State University of

New York – Buffalo State (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985; Noller, Parnes, & Biondi, 1976; Puccio et al., 2007).

As a creative process model with a more than 50-year history, CPS has been subjected to ongoing

development and continuous refinement. For a detailed description of the various versions of CPS, see

Puccio et al., (2005), Isaksen and Treffinger (2004), and Puccio and Cabra (2009). The current version of

CPS, used at the International Center for Studies in Creativity, is called the Thinking Skills Model (Puccio

et al., 2007) and features the following steps: Exploring the Vision, Formulating Challenges, Exploring

Ideas, Formulating Solutions, Exploring Acceptance, and Formulating a Plan. Additionally, one

metacognitive step, called Assessing the Situation, is used to help individuals and groups determine

where to begin in CPS and then how to proceed through this process. This version is referred to as the

Thinking Skills Model, as it articulates the kinds of thinking and affective skills developed through and

employed by CPS. Though the names of the steps in the CPS process have changed over the years,

several features have remained constant. First, each step of the process begins with a divergent phase,

the search for many, novel, and diverse options, which is followed by a convergent phase, the

identification and development of the most promising alternatives. Second, the model includes efforts

to clarify the problem, generate ideas, develop solutions, and plan for action, which closely parallels

descriptions of the stages included in individuals’ natural creative-process efforts. In this way, CPS is

intended to provide individuals and groups with an explicit creativity model that complements and

enhances their innate creative-thinking skills.

Two meta-analytic studies have confirmed the positive value of CPS (Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott, Leritz, &

Mumford, 2004). In fact, Scott et al. (2004) found that creativity training based on cognitive models,

such as CPS, were the most effective at enhancing attitude, problem solving, creative performance, and

divergent thinking. Basadur has carried out a robust research program in which he has tested the

efficacy of CPS training within organizational settings. Using his version of CPS, Basadur found that CPS

training significantly improved fluency in generating new product concepts (Basadur, Graen, & Green,

1982), attitudes towards divergent thinking (Basadur, Graen, & Scandura, 1986), and union-

management negotiations (Basadur, Pringle, Speranzini, & Bacot, 2000). Furthermore, Basadur has

reported similar positive effects of CPS training in other cultures, specifically Japan (Basadur,

Wakabayashi, & Takai, 1992) and South America (Basadur, Pringle, & Kirkland, 2002).

18

Beyond Basadur’s work, a number of other creativity researchers have explored the value of CPS

training in organizational settings. For a review of the empirical research focused on CPS training in the

workplace, see Puccio, Firestien, Coyle, and Masucci (2006).

De Bono Techniques

One of the most ardent proponents for the trainability of creativity is de Bono (1992). For more than

four decades, de Bono has authored books designed to teach readers how to be more creative. Two of

his most well-known concepts are lateral thinking (de Bono, 1977) and the six thinking hats (de Bono,

1999). Lateral thinking refers to a shift in thinking or perception; it is a complete break from previous

thoughts or paradigms. The sudden breakthrough associated with lateral thinking cannot be produced

through logical thinking; therefore, de Bono has devised strategies designed to assist individuals and

groups to generate radically new ideas that depart from entrenched ways of viewing a situation.

Where there are specific lateral-thinking tools that are applied to particular challenges, the six thinking

hats operate more akin to a creative process. Each hat represents a different kind of thinking a person is

to adopt. For instance, the white hat relates to information and facts. When wearing the red hat,

metaphorically speaking, the person is to focus his or her thinking on the emotional aspects of a

situation. The green hat is associated with creative thinking and idea generation. And so on. The hats are

designed to foster “parallel thinking” during group problem-solving efforts. The same hat, or way of

thinking, is adopted by all group members, thus creating a shared focus. De Bono (1999) considered the

hats as “direction labels for thinking” (p. 4). The group applies the thinking associated with the hats as

necessary to deliberately manage their process.

A recent study by Birdi (2004) examined the impact of a creativity-training program on employees in a

civil-service organization in the United Kingdom. The training program consisted of three two-day

workshops. One workshop, called Business Beyond the Box, focused on helping participants set radical

goals and develop strategies for achieving these goals. Two workshops were dedicated to de Bono’s

methods, one workshop focused on lateral thinking and the other on the six thinking hats. Analysis of a

post-program survey revealed that whereas the Business Beyond the Box workshop had the greatest

impact on attitude towards innovation, those workshops based on de Bono’s methods did more to

improve participants’ knowledge of creativity techniques. The de Bono workshops also showed greater

impact on work-related idea generation. Birdi’s (2004) study withstanding, it would appear that

empirical research into the efficacy of de Bono’s methods lags behind their wide diffusion and

popularity. In her recent review of de Bono’s methods, Dingli (2009) indicated that de Bono places much

greater emphasis on the “practical and effective application of his methods” (p. 345).

Appreciative Inquiry

19

Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) were the first to describe an organizational development process that

begins by looking at what is working well, as opposed to what needs to be fixed. This process is called

Appreciative Inquiry, AI for short, and is an affirmative approach used to explore opportunities for

organizational development and to sustain high levels of performance. AI assumes that it is simpler to

expand the “positive” than it is to get rid of the “negative.” The AI process is comprised of the following

stages: Discovery (i.e., identifying organizational processes and practices that are currently working

well); Dream (i.e., identifying ways to expand or further deploy the processes and practices that are

working well); Design (i.e., co-constructing the ideal future processes and practices); and Destiny (i.e.,

identifying ways to execute the proposed ideal processes and practices). Given the fact that the AI

process begins by focusing on positive organizational attributes, it has been shown to be particularly

useful in groups and organizations that are experiencing an adversarial work climate (Cooperrider &

Srivastva, 1987).

In a meta-case study of AI interventions, Bushe and Kassam (2005) found that the AI process led to

transformational change in 7 out of 20 cases. Based on the review of these case applications, Bushe and

Kassam (2005) concluded that “the forms of engagement that have evolved in AI practice may not, in

the end, turn out to be the best way to engage collective ideation, but these cases demonstrate that

doing so appears to be central to transformational change” (p. 176). To address this shortcoming, Cabra-

Vidales (2004) described the integration of CPS and AI in a manner that would be useful in

organizational development efforts. Elsewhere, Peelle (2006) conducted a quasi-experiment with six

work teams to compare the effects of CPS and AI on group identification and group potency. Working on

real business tasks, three cross-functional teams, comprising six members, followed the AI process,

while three teams of similar composition employed CPS. Results showed that both CPS and AI improved

posttask group potency and group identification. However, direct comparisons between the two

methodologies indicated that the AI process demonstrated greater effects on the affective disposition of

these teams. For instance, Peelle (2006) observed that members of the AI teams had a “shared sense of

liberation and empowerment not fully shared by teams employing CPS” (p. 460).

AI has been used with many organizations and on a wide range of organizational challenges.

Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros (2005) provide examples of the use of AI with such companies as

British Airways, McDonalds, and GTE. In the case of GTE, these authors report on the creation of more

than 10,000 innovations through the application of AI. See Cooperrider et al. (2005) and Cooperrider

and Sekerka (2003) for additional information on AI.

Design Thinking

Design thinking capitalizes mostly on a user-centric approach to problem solving. Innovation is achieved

mainly through careful observations of unmet consumer needs. Consumers’ experiences with products

and services often provides clues to implicit gaps, unarticulated sources of frustration, and opportunities

for new approaches. Design can be inspired also by what Fulton-Suri (2005) described as the

“thoughtless” acts of everyday life (e.g., throwing a jacket over a chair, positioning a laptop for more

20

comfortable use while lying in bed, resting a coffee cup on the floor while seated in a classroom desk).

Design thinking begins with the step Understand, which comprises learning as much as possible about

the use of a particular product or service (Ko & Kasaks, 2007). During this step a complete list of the

product or service’s features is created. The next step is called Observe. Here the individual or team is

encouraged to engage in “ethnographic” observation of users. This step also involves finding and

interviewing people willing to share their experiences with the product or service under question. This is

followed by the step called Point of View. In this step, meaning is drawn from the observations made in

the prior step. Next comes the step Visualize, which involves brainstorming sketches of solutions to the

challenges and insights associated with the product or service. After the best solutions are identified,

then physical solutions are created in the Prototype step. In the final step, Test and Reiterate, individuals

and teams solicit feedback on the prototype and make changes accordingly.

Design thinking has generated much interest. Take, for instance, an ABC News Dateline story, Deep Dive,

which reported on the design firm IDEO. So popular was the news report – as measured by the record

number of transcript requests – that it compelled ABC to rebroadcast this show five months later

(Koppel, 1999). Additionally, the increased interest in design thinking has led to the recent creation of

many design schools at universities around the world. BusinessWeek now ranks annually the top design

schools globally; it has been argued that companies are now turning to these schools to recruit creative

and talented managers (Woyke & Atal, 2007, October 4). For a description of the integration of design

thinking into business school programs and courses, see Bisoux (2007).

Synectics

Gordon (1960) introduced a creative process model, called Synectics, based primarily on the use of

analogies. This process encourages participants to dialogue through metaphor by using tools such as the

direct analogy (i.e., the individual thinks of ways similar to how problems in technology or biology, for

example, have been solved); personal analogy (i.e., the individual imagines him/herself as the problem);

symbolic analogy (i.e., the problem solver uses images that symbolically represent the essence of the

problem under consideration); and fantasy analogy (i.e., the individual identifies the perfect and most

outrageous solution and then works backwards to reach the ideal goal). Gordon (1960) argued that

creative people engage in a thinking process based on nonrational, free-association models that occur in

the preconscious levels of thought. Synectics, therefore, was developed to make this process explicit

and to overcome mental blocks to creative thinking through the use of analogical thinking.

Since its introduction in the 1960s, publications on Synectics have been sparse. A recent study by

Gassmann and Zeschky (2008) carefully analyzed situations in which analogical thinking successfully led

to new product innovation. Their findings highlighted the specific organizational conditions that are

necessary to promote effective use of analogies; for instance, the firm must begin by having a deep

understanding of the problem at hand and top management must be open to external solutions. For

recent descriptions of this creative process methodology and its use, see Prince (2002), Nolan (2003),

and Rickards (2003).

21

TRIZ

Where Synectics taps into the subjective free-associative processes of the mind, TRIZ, also known as the

Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, is based on objective and repeatable engineering principles and

practices. TRIZ was designed to take an algorithmic approach to invention, innovation, and creativity.

The origin of TRIZ dates back to the 1940s, when an official of the Soviet Navy patent department,

Genrich Altshuller (2001), reviewed thousand of patents and identified patterns among these

inventions. This analysis led to the formation of 40 principles of invention that are at the core of the TRIZ

process (Mann, 2001; Moehrle, 2005). These principles are intended to enable individuals to resolve

engineering contradictions that are at the essence of the problem. The problem solver reviews the list of

40 principles and then selects a principle that best fits the problem or uses a matrix to help in selecting

the most appropriate invention principle (Moehrle, 2005). An example of a TRIZ principle is Dynamicity.

Here the problem solver identifies a product’s attributes, then selects one that is deemed immoveable,

and thinks of ways to make it moveable.

TRIZ has evolved as it has integrated other creative practices to tackle a wide range of nontechnical

problems including those in the area of customer service (Zhang, Chair, & Tan, 2005) and the field of

biology (Vincent, Bogatyreva, Pahl, Bogatyrev & Bowyer, 2005). TRIZ has been widely adopted in

organizations, and as such there are numerous papers that describe the use of this method. For

examples of TRIZ applications to various business challenges in 2008 alone, see Akay, Demiray, and Kurt

(2008), Chang, Tseng, and Wu (2008), and Su and Lin (2008). Additionally, León-Rovira, Heredia-Escorza,

and Lozano-Del Río (2008) conducted an empirical study that tested the impact of TRIZ training on

engineering students.

Deliberate Creativity: Some Future Directions

Since the early introduction of structured methods for promoting creative thinking in the 1950s and 60s,

it would seem that at no time has there been a greater demand for and application of these methods.

The literature abounds with case examples of applications of such methods as TRIZ, design thinking, CPS,

and AI. The preponderance of documented cases of the successful application of these methods in

organizations provides a compelling story for their usefulness. However, as application has greatly

outpaced scholarship, there is a clear need to close the gap between practice and research. Why would

this be a concern? First, these methods are not all identical. It is likely that they have different strengths

and, as a result, some may work better under certain conditions and on particular kinds of challenges.

Empirical studies would be instrumental in illuminating the respective value of these creative

methodologies. Second, there seem to be great disparities in the number of empirical investigations of

the training effects of these methodologies. Whereas CPS has been examined in approximately 20

empirical studies in organizational contexts, there appears to be a paucity of research into de Bono’s

methods, design thinking, AI, and TRIZ. Research is needed to expand the investigations into CPS and to

take up the issue of training effects in regard to the other methodologies. Finally, research needs to be

carried out that examines the degree to which such creativity methodologies can move beyond their

22

limited use as tools – that is, as strategies employed only when a difficult task presents itself – and can

be woven into the very fabric of an organization. That is to make the cognitive and affective principles

that operate underneath these methods part of the organizational culture. It is likely that when such

attitudes and thought processes become part of the culture, an organization will become a truly creative

system, thus encouraging creativity to arise in all units and at any time.

Leadership

A major trend within the area of organizational creativity has been the increased attention given to the

role leadership plays in fostering creativity in the workplace. Many writers now argue that one of the

most prominent variables within the organizational context that either promotes or undermines

creativity is leadership behavior. Recent surveys of top-level managers carried out by McKinsey (Barsh,

Capozzi & Davidson, 2008) and the Boston Consulting Group (Andrew et al., 2007) pointed to the crucial

role top management plays in bringing about innovation in organizations. For instance, in the conclusion

of their Boston Consulting Group report, Andrew et al. summed up their findings by stating that

most critically, it will mean demonstrating to the rest of the organization – through the

leader’s words and actions – that innovation is a personal priority. This is truly a case of

walking the walk and talking the talk, because employees are unlikely to believe a leader

who says one thing and does another. (p. 27)

Numerous other writers have pointed out the impact of leadership at the broad organizational level

(Blau & McKinley, 1979; Hitt, 1975; VanGundy, 1987), and more specifically on group creativity

(Mumford, 2000; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Rickards & Moger, 2000). Indeed, the link between

leadership behavior and organizational and group creativity has led to a burgeoning body of research

(see, for example, Amabile et al., 2004; Basadur, 2004; Boehlke, 2008; Chen, 2007; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev,

in press; Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Jung, 2000–2001; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Shalley &

Gilson, 2004; Shin & Zhou 2007; Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2003; Wu, McMullen,

Neubert, & Yi, 2008). Additionally, many of the dimensions featured in Table 8.1 highlight the important

role leadership plays in establishing a work environment conducive to creativity (e.g., Amabile et al.,

1999; Rickards & Bessant, 1980; VanGundy, 1987).

The intensified focus on the influence of leaders has led to the articulation of leadership behaviors,

abilities, and qualities thought to be conducive to creativity and, ultimately, innovation. Based on the

work carried out at the Boston Consulting Group, Andrew and Sirkin (2006) argued that leaders who

wish to turn creative ideas into innovation tend to possess a particular set of qualities that would be less

prevalent in other leadership activities and responsibilities. They identified these qualities and skills as

follows: tolerance for ambiguity; ability to assess and be comfortable with risk; ability to quickly and

effectively assess an individual; ability to balance passion and objectivity; and ability to change.

A qualitative study of employees’ daily dairies by Amabile et al. (2004) yielded a detailed description of

leader behaviors that supported or undermined employees’ creativity. Some of the positive leader

23

behaviors included showing support for a team member’s actions, addressing subordinates’ negative

feelings, providing constructive positive feedback on work done, maintaining regular contact with and

providing general guidance to subordinates, and asking for team members’ ideas and opinions.

Examples of the leader behaviors identified by Amabile et al. that inhibited employee creativity included

checking on the status of assigned work too often, not providing enough clarity about an assignment,

changing assignments or objectives too frequently, and displaying lack of interest in subordinates’ work

or ideas.

With the increased concern for managing creativity, leadership theories and models have been

empirically tested for their relevance to this group and organizational outcome. The model of

charismatic leadership, originally introduced by House (1977) and extended by Conger and others (see

Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Hunt & Conger, 1999), offers a set of personal qualities that

seem germane to creativity and innovation management. Murphy and Ensher (2008) examined the

degree to which the characteristics ascribed to charismatic leaders were prevalent among successful

television directors and their efforts to promote creative productions. The qualitative analysis of

interviews conducted with 21 directors of well-known national television shows revealed that many of

the qualities ascribed to charismatic leadership were prevalent in the creative work led by these

individuals.Visioning, for example, assisted in setting a work climate conducive to creative thinking. The

directors demonstrated a sensitivity to group member’s needs and used a higher than average amount

of praise in discussions with others. The leaders in this study also described the use of unconventional

behaviors as a means to inspire group loyalty.

Perhaps the leadership theory that has received the greatest attention with respect to organization

creativity is the transformational-leadership model (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders assist

followers in developing their fullest potential. Transformational leaders motivate others to do more

than what is expected or to transcend their own self-interests. In summarizing the qualities of a

transformational leader, Northouse (2004) provided some clear connections between this leadership

approach and creativity:

It includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and innovative, and to

challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the

organization. This type of leadership supports followers as they try new approaches and

develop innovative ways of dealing with organizational issues. (p. 177)

Numerous research studies have examined the positive effects of transformational leadership on group

creativity. Jung (2000–2001) found that small groups led by transformational leaders were significantly

more fluent and flexible in generating ideas to a problem than groups subjected to a transactional

leader (i.e., a leader-follower exchange based on a quid pro quo relationship). Sosik (1997) tested and

found that groups working under the high transformational leadership condition generated more

original solutions to an open-ended task than did groups working under a low-transformational

leadership condition. Similarly, Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio (1998) showed that the high transformational

leadership approach led to higher levels of idea elaborations and original solutions in small groups.

24

The studies cited above involved undergraduate students working on open ended problems for which

they had little ownership, but does transformational leadership make a difference in real organizations?

A growing body of literature has examined this precise issue. Shin and Zhou (2003) found that Korean

employees exhibited higher levels of creativity under transformational leaders. In a more recent study of

R&D teams, the same authors (Shin & Zhou, 2007) demonstrated that employees’ observations of the

amount of transformational leadership behavior exhibited by their immediate supervisor predicted

team creativity (i.e., newness of ideas, significance of ideas, and usefulness of ideas). Specifically, these

authors found that transformational leadership had a particular interaction effect with educational

specialization heterogeneity such that team creativity went up when there were high levels of

transformational leadership and high levels of educational diversity. Jung, Chow, and Wu (2003)

reported that transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on organizational innovation

as measured by R&D expenditures and patents obtained over a three-year period. Gumusluoglu and

Ilsev (2009) studied 43 different Turkish firms and found that transformational leadership behaviors,

controlling for job tenure and education, had a significant positive relationship with employee creativity.

The same researchers also found that higher levels of transformational leadership predicted

organizational innovation. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev demonstrated that the ratio of sales generated by

product innovation to total sales, and the ratio of sales generated by product innovation to expenditures

for innovative efforts, were linked to transformational leadership behavior.

Puccio et al. (2007) have argued that the fields of leadership and creativity have become inextricably

linked, and that the shared bond between these two concepts is change. Creativity, the introduction of

original and useful ideas, is a process that leads to change. And leadership often acts as the catalyst for

change (Puccio et al., 2007). Those who lead teams and organizations in the ever-changing social,

technical, business, and global environments must generate original responses themselves and facilitate

the creative thinking of others, both greatly enhanced through creative thinking and problem solving.

This has led some researchers, such as Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000), to

conclude that the main task for today’s leaders is to resolve complex social problems. To do so, leaders

must be creative problem solvers. Mumford and colleagues (e.g., Mumford, Baughman, Maher,

Costanza, & Supinski, 1997; Mumford, Baughman, Supinski, & Maher, 1996; Mumford, Baughman,

Threlfall, Supinski, & Costanza, 1996; Mumford, Supinski, Threlfall, & Baughman, 1996; Reiter-Palmon &

Illies, 2004) have carried out research that has unpacked the cognitive abilities associated with creative

problem solving, and Puccio et al. have outlined the thinking skills and strategies leaders can use to

become more effective at resolving open-ended problems and, ultimately, to bring about change. Given

the important relationship between leadership and creativity, especially with respect to organizational

creativity, it is highly likely that leadership will continue to receive great attention by those interested in

how creativity manifests itself in teams and organizations. Simply put, leadership behavior has emerged

as the one of the most potent variables in predicting creativity in teams and organizations.

Conclusion

25

In 1975 Hitt lamented the paucity of research in the area of organizational creativity. And now, a little

more than three decades later, it is impossible to summarize the voluminous breadth of literature in a

single chapter. This research has enabled a great deal of knowledge to be amassed about the individual

qualities of employees that contribute to creativity in the workplace. There is a better understanding of

the types of creativity methodologies that can be used to facilitate creative thinking and problem solving

in teams and organizations. There is much greater recognition of the impact of the work environment on

organizational creativity and the specific dimensions that either facilitate or undermine creativity in

organizational settings. Finally, recent work has illuminated the central role leadership behavior plays in

promoting workplace creativity.

These research efforts have spawned a vast body of knowledge, knowledge that when applied can do

much to uplift a very important organizational resource – employee creativity. Organizations are

designed to solve society’s problems. Those organizations that are richer in ideas and more imaginative

are likely to be more effective at meeting society’s demands and more adept at adapting to changing

circumstances. The field of creativity, in large measure, is an applied science. As such, the insights gained

through more than 30 years of research into organizational creativity can do much to bolster

organizations’ efforts to promote creativity. Leaders who employ strategies and knowledge associated

with individual creativity, creativity processes, and creative environments stand a greater chance in

bringing about organizational creativity that will ultimately lead to higher levels of both internal and

external innovation.

References

[Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 362–368.

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH:

Southwestern.

Akay, D., Demiray, A., & Kurt, M. (2008). Collaborative tool for solving human factors problems in the

manufacturing environment: The theory of inventive problem solving technique (TRIZ) method.

International Journal of Production Research, 46, 2913–2925.

Albery, N., & Yule, V. (1989). Encyclopaedia of Social Inventions. London: The Institute for Social

Inventions.

26

Altshuller, G. (2001). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving

(L. Shulyak, Trans.). Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.

Amabile, T. M. (1983a). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1983b). Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–377.

Amabile, T. M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Fontiers of creativity

research: Beyond the basics (pp. 223–254). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 10, 123–167.

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward a new conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185–201.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.

Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1999). User’s manual for assessing the climate for

creativity: A survey from the center for creative leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1988). Creative human resources in the R&D laboratory: How

environment and personality affect innovation. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Handbook of creative and

innovative managers (pp. 501–524). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work

environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and

validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

Andrew, J. P., & Sirkin, H. L. (2006). Payback: Reaping the rewards of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Andrew, J. P., Sirkin, H. L., Haanæs, K., & Michael, D. C. (2007, August). Innovation 2007: A BCG senior

management survey (BCG Report). Boston: Boston Consulting Group.

Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Barsh, J., Capozzi, M., & Davidson, J. (2008, January). Leadership and innovation. The McKinsey

Quarterly. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Leadership_and_innovation_2089

27

Basadur, M. (1987). Needed research in creativity for business and industrial applications. In S. G.

Isaksen (Ed.), Fontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 390– 416). Buffalo, NY:

Bearly Limited.

Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 103–121.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation

and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 30, 41–70.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1986). Training affects on attitudes toward divergent

thinking amongst manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 612–617.

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., & Kirkland, D. (2002). Crossing cultures: Training effects on the divergent

thinking attitudes of Spanish-speaking South American managers. Creativity Research Journal,

14(3&4), 395–408.

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini,G., & Bacot, M. (2002). Collaborative problem solving through

creativity in problem definition: Expanding the pie. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9(1),

54–76.

Basadur, M., Wakabayashi, M., & Takia, J. (1992). Training effects on the divergent thinking attitudes of

Japanese managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(3), 329–345.

Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual mechanisms,

organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17,

424–434.

Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Birdi, K. S. (2004). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 29, 102–111.

Bisoux, T. (2007). Design thinking @ innovation U. BizEd, 6, 24–31.

Blau, J. R, & McKinley, W. (1979). Ideas, complexity, and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,

24, 200–219.

Boehlke, S. (2008). The Politics of Creativity: Four Domains for Inquiry and Action by Leaders in R&D.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 77–87.

Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds

(Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–32). New York: Plenum.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

28

Burrows, P. (2008, April 17). Bezos on innovation. Business Week. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_17/b4081064880218.htm

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?: A meta-case

analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 161–181.

Cabra-Vidales, J. F. (2004). Complementary application of appreciative inquiry and organizational

creative problem solving. Revista Escuela de Administración de Negocios [Journal of Business

School of Administration], Bogotá, Colombia, 53, 96–100.

Cabra, J. F., Talbot, R. J., Joniak, A. J. (January–June, 2005). Exploratory study of creative climate: A case

from selected Colombian companies and its implications on organizational development.

Cuadernos de Administración, Bogotá, Colombia, 18(29), 53–86.

Carnevale, A. P., Garner, L. J., & Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Workplace basics: The essential skills employers

want. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chang, W. T., Tseng, C. H., & Wu, L. L. (2008). Conceptual innovation of a prosthetic hand using TRIZ.

Journal of the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers, 29, 111– 120.

Chen, M. H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in entrepreneurial teams.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 239–249.

Chuang, L. (2007). The social psychology of creativity and innovation: Process theory (PT) perspective.

Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 875–888.

Chung, S. (2003). Innovation in Korea. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on

Innovation, pp. 890–903. Oxford: Pergamon.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s

perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership.

In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 78–97). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Sekerka, L. E. (2003). Toward a theory of positive organizational change. In K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a

new discipline (pp. 225–240). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in

Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129–169.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The first in a

series of workshops for leaders of change. Euclid, OH: Crown Custom Publishing.

29

Davis, H., & Scase, R. (2001). Managing creativity: The dynamics of work and organization. Buckingham,

UK: Open University Press.

de Bono, E. (1977). Lateral thinking. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York:

Harper Collins.

de Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats (revised). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

DeGraff, J., & Lawrence, K. A. (2002). Creativity at work: Developing the right practices to make

innovation happen. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (University of Michigan Business School

Management Series).

De Soto, F. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere

else. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D

environment. R&D Management, 37, 197–208.

Dingli, S. (2009). Thinking outside the box: Edward de Bono’s lateral thinking. In T. Rickards, M. A.

Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity (338–350). London: Routledge.

Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (Eds.). (2008). Small country innovation systems: Globalization, change and

policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Edgar Publishing.

Ekvall, G. (1983). Climate, structure and innovativeness of organizations: A theoretical framework and

experiment. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Management and Work Life Issues.

Ekvall, G. (1991). The organizational culture of idea-management: A creative climate for the

management of ideas. In J. Henry & D. Walker (Eds.), Managing Innovation (pp. 73–79). London:

Sage.

Ekvall, G. (1983). Climate, structure and innovativeness in organizations: A theoretical framework and an

experiment. [Report 1]. Stockholm: Faradet.

Ekvall, G. (1991). The organizational culture of idea-management: A creative climate for the

management of ideas. In J. Henry & D. Walker (Eds.), Managing innovation (pp. 73–79). London:

Sage.

Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.

Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 6, 195–205.

30

Ekvall, G. (2000). Management and organizational philosophies and practices as stimulants or blocks to

creative behavior: A study of engineers. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9, 94–99.

Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a Swedish

university. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 303–310.

Ekvall, G., & Tångeberg-Andersson, Y. (1986). Working climate and creativity: A study of an innovative

newspaper office. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(3), 215–225.

Elgin, B. (2005, October 3). Managing Google’s idea factory. BusinessWeek, 88–90.

Estrin, J. (2009). Closing the innovation gap: Reigniting the spark of creativity in the global economy.

New York: McGraw Hill.

Ewing, J. (2007, August 20). No cubicle culture. BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from

www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_34/b4047412.htm

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it is transforming work, leisure, community, and

everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Forbes, N., & Wield, D. (2002). From followers to leaders: Managing technology and innovation in newly

industrializing countries. London: Routledge.

Ford, C. M. (1995). Creativity is a mystery: Clues from the investigators’ notebooks. In C. M. Ford & D. A.

Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices (pp. 12–49).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California

Management Review, 50, 94–119.

Fulton-Suri, J. (2005). Thoughtless acts? Observations on intuitive design. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle

Books.

Gassmann, O., & Zeschky, M. (2008). Opening up the solution space: The role of analogical thinking for

breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(2), 97–106.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in

multi-level research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601–616.

Gordon, W. J. J. (1960). Synectics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Guilford, J. P. (1970). Traits of creativity. In P. E. Vernon (Eds.), Creativity (pp. 167–188). Middlesex,

England: Penguin.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 9, 120–125.

31

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational

innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461–473.

Haner, U-E. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations. Creativity and

Innovation Management, 14(3), 288–298.

Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate.

Boston: Harvard University Press.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. A. (1998). Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American

Psychologist, 53, 674–675.

Henry, J. (2001). Creativity and perception in management. London: Sage.

Hitt, M. A. (1975). The creative organization: Tomorrow’s survivor. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 9,

283–290.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations

across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Holt, K. (1987). Innovation: A challenge to the engineer. Oxford: Elsevier.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: An assessment of transformational and

charismatic leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 335–343.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social

implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447–472.

IBM Gobal CEO Study (2006). Expanding the innovation horizon. Somers, NY: The IBM Corporation.

Inzelt, A. (2003). Innovation process in Hungary. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on

innovation, (pp. 859–880). Oxford: Pergamon.

Isaksen, S. G. (2007). The climate for transformation: Lessons for leaders. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 16(1), 3–15.

Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2007). Assessing your context for change: A technical manual for the SOQ –

Enhancing performance of organizations, leaders and teams for over 50 years (2nd ed.). Orchard

Park, New York: The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc.

Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2000-2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates

for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire.

Creativity Research Journal, 13, 171–184.

32

Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving: The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly

Limited.

Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative

problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 75–101.

Janzen, F. (2000). The age of innovation. London: Prentice Hall.

Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior.

The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475–498.

Jung, D. I. (2000–2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in

groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185–196.

Jung, D.I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing

organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly,

14, 525–544.

Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what

we can do to get it back. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Ko, A., & Kazaks, A. (2007). Use your noodle: An instant guide to design. Ambidextrous, 7, 26–27.

Koppel, T. (Producer). (July 13, 1999). Deep Dive. Nightline. [Television series episode]. New York: ABC

News.

Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2),

89–96.

Lafley, A. G., & Charan, R. (2008). Game-changer: How you can drive revenue and profit growth with

innovation. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

León-Rovira, N., Heredia-Escorza, Y., & Lozano-Del Río, L. (2008). Systematic creativity, challenge-based

instruction and active learning: A study of its impact on freshman engineering students.

International Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 1051–1061.

Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 14(1), 73–83.

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity, (pp. 339–

350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lundy, O., & Cowling, A. (1996). Strategic human resource management. London: Routledge.

33

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. The American Psychologist, 17,

484–495.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., & Charue-Duboc, F. (2008). Enhancing discontinuous innovation through

knowledge combination: The case of an exploratory unit within an established automotive firm.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 127–135.

Makridakis, S. (1989). Management in the 21st century. Long Range Planning, 21(2), 37– 53.

Mann, D. (2001). An introduction to TRIZ: The theory of inventive problem solving. Creativity and

Innovation Management, 10(2), 123–125.

Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and

innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(10), 64–74.

Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen,S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative

environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119–140.

Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen,S., Jørstad,K., & Brønnick, K. (2004). Climate for work group creativity and

innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI). Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 45, 383–392.

Miller, W. C. (1988). The strategic innovation management assessment profile. In Y. Ijiri, & R. L. Kuhn

(Eds.), New directions in creative and innovative management: Bridging theory and practice, (pp.

287–302). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Moehrle, M. G. (2005). What is TRIZ? Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 3– 13.

Mostafa, M. M., & El-Masry, A. (2008). Perceived barriers to organizational creativity: A cross-cultural

study of British and Egyptian future marketing managers. CrossCultural Management, 15(1), 81–

93.

Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U-E., Janssen, S., & Van Der Lugt, L. (2007). Innovation

spaces: Towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in

innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 53–65.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human

Resources Management Review, 10, 313–351.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. P. (1997). Process-

based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity Research

Journal, 10, 59–71.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Supinski, E. P., & Maher, M. A.,(1996). Process based measures of

creative problem-solving skills: II. Information encoding. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 77–88.

34

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K.V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-

based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research

Journal, 9, 63–76.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:

Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.

Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Threlfall, K.V., & Baughman, W. A. (1996). Process based measures of

creative problem-solving skills: III. Category selection. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 395–406.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills

for a changing world: Solving complex problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11–35.

Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (2008). A qualitative analysis of charismatic leadership in creative teams:

The case of television directors. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 335–352.

Nolan, V. (2003). Whatever happened to Synectics? Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 24–27.

Noller, R. B., Parnes, S. J., & Biondi, A. M. (1976). Creative actionbook: Revised edition of the creative

behavior workbook. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New

York: Scribner’s Sons.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource

and policy guide. Tuscon, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

Peelle, H. E. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in cross-functional teams. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 447–467.

Prakash, Y., & Gupta, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between organization structure and

perceived innovation in the manufacturing sector in India. Singapore Management Review, 30,

55–76.

Prince, G. M. (2002). Your life is a series of meetings…Get good at life. Weston, MA: 1st Books Library.

Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2009). Creative problem solving: Past, present, and future. In T. Rickards, H.

A. Runco, and S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity. (pp. 327–337). London:

Routledge.

35

Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C., & Masucci, C. (2006). A review of the effectiveness of CPS

training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 19–33.

Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2005). Current developments in Creative Problem Solving

for organizations. The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 43–76.

Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2007). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rapaille, G. (2001). 7 secrets of marketing in a multi-cultural world. Provo, UT: Executive Excellence

Publishing.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader

behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55,

120–151.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a

creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.

Rhodes, M. (1961, April). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 305–310.

Rickards, T. (1996). The management of innovation: Recasting the role of creativity. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 13–27.

Rickards, T. (2003). Synectics: Reflections of a little-s practitioner. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 12, 28–31.

Rickards, T., & Bessant, J. (1980). The creativity audit: Introduction of a new research measure during

programmes for facilitating organizational change. R&D Management, 10, 67–75.

Rickards, T., & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team development: An

alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management, 11, 273–283.

Rose, L. H., & Lin, H-T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. The Journal of

Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11–22.

Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research 47(3): 273–290.

SCANS Commission (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. The

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor.

Schoenfeldt, L. F., & Jansen, K. J. (1997). Methodological requirements for studying creativity in

organizations. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 73–90.

36

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative

review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual

factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.

Sellgren, S. F., Ekvall, G., & Tomson, G. (2008). Leadership behaviour of nurse managers in relation to

job satisfaction and work climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 578–587.

Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in Innovation championing

strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from

Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in

research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.

Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in

organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553–562.

Soo, C., Devinney, T., Midgley, D., & Deering, A. (2002). Knowledge management: Philosophy,

processes, and pitfalls. California Management Review, 44, 129–150.

Soriano de Alencar, E. M. L., & Bruno-Faria, M. D. F. (1997). Characteristics of an organizational

environment which stimulates and inhibits creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 271–281.

Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-

mediated groups. Group & Organizational Management, 22, 460–487.

Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity:

Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111–

121.

Stein, M. I.,(1968). Creativity. In E. F. Boragatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory

and research (pp. 900–942). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations. Academy of Management

Learning and Education, 2, 386–401.

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2003). A propulsion model of creative leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly, 14, 455–473.

37

Su, C. T., & Lin, C. S. (2008). A case study on the application of fuzzy QFD in TRIZ for service quality

improvement. Quality & Quantity, 42, 563–578.

Sumanski, M. M., Kolenc, I., & Markic, M. (2007). Teamwork and defining group structures. Team

Performance Management, 13, 102–116.

Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. (Eds.) (2005). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms and technical manual. Bensenville, IL:

Scholastic Testing Services.

VanGundy, A. (1987). Organizational creativity and innovation. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of

creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 358–379). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Vardis, H., & Seldon, G. L. (2008). A report card on innovation: How companies and business schools are

dealing with it. In G. J. Puccio, C. Burnett, J. F. Cabra, J. M. Fox, S. Keller-Mathers, M. C. Murdock,

& J. A. Yudess (Eds.), Creativity and innovation management: An international conference (pp.

239–258). Buffalo, NY: International Center for Studies in Creativity.

Vincent, J. F. V., Bogatyreva, O., Pahl, A-K, Bogatyrev, N., & Bowyer, A. (2005). Putting biology into

TRIZ: A database of biological effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 66–72.

Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2003). The multicultural muse: Culture, creativity, and innovation.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 235–259.

Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of

creativity.(pp. 226–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.

Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

Woyke, E., & Atal, M. (2007, October 4). The talent hunt: Design programs are shaping a new generation

of creative managers. BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2007/id2007104_575219.htm

Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on

employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587– 602.

Zhang, J., Chair, K-H., & Tan, K-C. (2005). Applying TRIZ to service conceptual design: An exploratory

study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 34–42.

Zhou, & Shalley, (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.]

38