a review of creativity within organizations from a psychological

A review of creativity withinorganizations from a

psychological perspectiveMarja Klijn

Klijn CRM Consultancy, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Welko TomicThe Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to survey the main creativity models, mediators as well as theenhancers of organizational creativity, all from a psychological perspective. In addition, the paperseeks to identify gaps in knowledge of organizational creativity. Aspects of creativity that requirecloser inspection are described.

Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature on creativity within organizationsfrom a psychological perspective was undertaken. A large number of research papers, mainlypublished after 1985 covering creativity and/or innovation, were identified and critically evaluated forrelevance to the paper’s purpose, and were judged on sufficient scholarship in order to create anarrative literature review.

Findings – Despite the great amount of psychological research on creativity and innovation, only afew models and theories appear to be defined. Moreover, their predictive value and incorporation ofpossible influencing factors is limited. In general, it can be concluded that the field of creativityrequires more in-depth research as well as a synthesis of results of various studies and models in orderto effectively develop, promote and predict creativity within organizations.

Research limitations/implications – The review focuses mainly on psychological aspects ofcreativity in organizations as published in research papers. In future studies for determining generictheories and conclusions, other aspects, e.g. sociological, cultural, economic and biological, should betaken into account.

Originality/value – A large and diverse number of studies on creativity in organizations have beenconducted, but a comprehensive review paper on organizational creativity is still lacking. This papersupplies this need for survey. The findings of the current paper provide a well documented framework inaddressing creativity enhancers in organizational environments. Furthermore, it articulates suggestionsfor further research and can be a good starting-point for newcomers in this research domain.

Keywords Creative thinking, Organizations, Psychology

Paper type General review

IntroductionRapid change, global competition, and an increasingly demanding environment has madethe ability of organizations to innovate crucial to their long-term performance. Innovationin this context is vital and a consequence of the desire to grow, keep up with competitors,and adapt to changing customer needs (Amabile and Conti, 1999; Porter, 1990; Hitt et al.,1997). Other authors suggest that innovation is also the result of people satisfying theircuriosity by finding new concepts or optimizing existing ones (Hopp, 1998).

A common definition of innovation is: the successful implementation of creativeideas (Gaspersz, 2005; Wood, 2003; Woodman et al., 1993). Creativity is therefore seenas the cornerstone of innovation. So to be able to promote innovation, it is important to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD29,4

322

Received 16 September 2008Revised 29 June 2009Accepted 26 November 2009

Journal of Management DevelopmentVol. 29 No. 4, 2010pp. 322-343q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0262-1711DOI 10.1108/02621711011039141

understand the process of creativity and its mediators. This probably also explains whyextensive research has been carried out into the concept of creativity, mainly in the lasttwenty years. El-Murad and West (2004) ascertained that the annual number of articlesfeaturing the word “creativity” or “creative” in the title multiplied by five during theperiod 1985-1995. Much of these studies were performed from psychological perspective,primarily within the subfields social, environmental, and organizational psychology. Butother psychological subfields have also investigated creativity, for example neurological,cognitive, and experimental psychology (Borghini, 2005). Creativity is therefore a subjectof broad interest in the field of psychology. The determinants investigated and themodels developed depend on the authors’ psychological field.

The great diversity of psychological themes and subfields mean that the publishedknowledge of creativity is very diverse and fragmented. The purpose of this article is:

. to survey the published psychological literature concerning: the mainpsychological creativity models; and the mediators as well as the enhancers ofcreativity; and

. identify the aspects of creativity that require closer inspection.

All these points will be discussed in relation to an organizational environment.Before beginning this review, we require a more detailed definition of creativity.

There are two main definitions of creativity. First, creativity is defined as theproduction of new and useful ideas or solutions (Amabile, 1983a, b; Sternberg, 1988;Gaspersz, 2005; Burleson and Selker, 2002; Woodman et al., 1993; Amabile et al., 1996).Second, it is defined as the mental process that allows people to think up new anduseful ideas (Gaspersz, 2005; Mayer, 1999). The first definition refers to both theprocess of idea generation or problem solving and the actual idea or problem (Amabile,1983a, b; Sternberg, 1988). The second focuses primarily on the mental process.According to Amabile(1983a) this mental process occurs in five phases: problem ortask presentation, preparation, response generation, response validation, and outcome.Measuring mental processes is, however, difficult and can only be done by means ofexpensive laboratory experiments. In practice, creativity is measured mostly byquestionnaires and assessments of the creative outcome (Smith et al., 2000). In thatsense, creativity is defined as the production of new and useful ideas or solutions.Csikszentmihalyi (1996) added to this definition that creativity should change anexisting domain or create a new one. All together, organizational creativity can beinterpreted as the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure orprocess by individuals working together in a complex system (Woodman et al., 1993).For the purpose of this article, creativity is viewed as the production of new and usefulideas or solutions by one or more individuals within a work environment.

MethodThis review involved studying a great number of articles and some books concerningcreativity and/or innovation. Information was retrieved from the (online) library of theUniversity of Amsterdam and the multi-media library at the Open University of TheNetherlands in Heerlen. Some additional relevant information was retrieved on theinternet. Articles written in Dutch, English, German or French were considered, withthe focus being on publication dates after 1985. Every article was judged on itsrelevancy and sufficient scholarship.

Creativity withinorganizations

323

The reviewed articles often consisted of model descriptions or previous reviewswhich had not been verified by underlying data. If they had been verified, the methodsused were so diverse that the findings were non-comparable. A meta-analysis was notpossible for this reason, and a narrative review was therefore preferred (Eagly, 2005).

ResultsCreativity modelsThe different moderators and mediators of creativity have been investigated in-depth.The factors that are examined and how they should be translated within their contextdepend mainly on the researchers’ interests and theoretical (psychological)background. In order to correctly interpret and understand the determinants found,some knowledge is required of the current main theoretical frameworks related toorganizational creativity. It is remarkable in this respect that although there has been alot of research into the determinants for creativity, few attempts have been made totheorizes and link all these aspects together. Creativity research, therefore, often seemsad hoc in nature ( James et al., 2004).

Most surveys concerning organizational creativity have been conducted by socialpsychologists. It is also social psychology that has produced most of the theories andmodels of how creativity can be affected, although such theories and models are still rare.There are, for instance, multiple theories that relate emotional change as a consequenceof social change to creativity. These models assume that positive affect leads to cognitivevariation which stimulates creativity (Isen et al., 1985). Amabile et al. (2005) havetheorized that diverse influences can, at any point, start a dynamic pattern ofincreasingly or decreasingly positive affect on creativity. These influences may consistof activities provoked by the organization, a change in emotional status, changes in thesocial environment, and the effects of the creative outcome itself. Not only are the directconsequences of affect on creativity and vice versa taken into account, but also processesin which affect functions as a concomitant or direct/indirect effect of creative thinking.The theory is known as the organizational affect-creativity cycle (Figure 1).

An earlier and probably better-known model by Amabile (1983b) is thecomponential theory of creativity. It states that three components are relevant increative processes. First, the domain relevant skills. They consist of knowledge,technical skills, and talent in the specific domain. The domain relevant skills aremainly developed through education and work experience. Second, the creativityrelevant skills, such as cognitive thinking styles, working styles, and personalitycharacteristics. Intrinsic task motivation is also mentioned as a mediating factor in thecreative process. Intrinsic task motivation represents the attitude regarding a task andthe perception of one’s own motivation. Finally, Amabile mentions that intrinsicmotivation interacts with a fourth element: the external social environment in which anindividual operates. In addition to this componential theory, Ford (1996) proposed aninteraction model. He theorized that the knowledge and abilities as mentioned byAmabile multiplied by motivational and sense making factors predict the extent ofindividual creative action taken (Figure 2).

In short, Amabile has tried to conceptualize the creative process which is used byFord to predict the actual actions taken that are considered to be creative. Another causalmodel of creative action developed within social psychology was proposed byRamamoorth et al. (2005). This model suggests that innovative behavior is based on

JMD29,4

324

psychological contract, job design, and organizational justice. They hypothesized thatmeritocracy, procedural justice perceptions, job autonomy, pay, and met expectationswill, either directly or indirectly, positively influence the perceived obligation to innovatethat results in innovative work behavior. Tests of this model have led to the conclusionthat a sixth indirect determinant for innovative work behavior could be added: equityappeared to positively influence met expectations.

A relatively recent model that can be classified within both social andorganizational psychology is the circular model regarding the effects ofmulticultural organizations on creativity (Figure 3). Borghini (2005) stated thatcultural integration positively influences the shared mental models and corecompetences of employees, enhancing creativity and subsequently boostingproposals of creative solutions, also referred to as “variety”. These solutions bringabout movement within an organization and promote cultural integration. On the otherhand, cultural integration also encourages the codification of knowledge. Thecodification process involves the translation of tacit or contextual knowledge intoforms that are subject to communication and transmission. Codified knowledge isoften formalized in programs, procedures, software, patents, instructions etcetera.These formalized structures can, however, lead to core or organizational rigidities,meaning the inability to abandon rules and consolidated knowledge that have provedto be effective in the past. These rigidities can, in its turn, limit creativity.

The confluence model of creativity by Sternberg and Lubart (1996) is a theorizationwithin personality psychology. It suggests that creative individuals show a variety of

Figure 1.Organizational affect cycle

on creativity


325

Figure 2.Creativity model asproposed by Ford

JMD29,4

326

characteristics. These characteristics largely represent decisions that people takerather than innate abilities. According to this model people decide to be creative. Afurther claim within this context is that self-leadership is necessary to performeffectively in the workplace (Neck and Manz, 1996). Self-leadership can be described asa self-influencing process that helps individuals to develop self-direction andself-motivation. Embroidering on self-leadership, another model was developed thatcan be placed within the context of personality, social, and organizational psychology.It suggests that individuals with strong self-leadership consider themselves to havemore innovative and creativity potential than individuals who have weakself-leadership. It is also suggested that individuals are more likely to practiceinnovation and creativity when they perceive strong support from their work group,supervisor, and organization than individuals who perceive weak support from theirwork environment. This implies that individuals with strong self-leadership whoperceive suitable support from their work environment will be most likely to exhibitcreative behavior (DiLiello and Houghton, 2006).

Another interactionist model combining knowledge from multiple psychologicalfields was proposed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989). This model suggests thatcreativity is the complex product of a person’s behavior in a given situation. Asituation is characterized by contextual and social influences that either facilitate orinhibit creative accomplishment. These influences provoke both cognitive and noncognitive traits and predispositions within an individual that can lead to creativeactions. This model combines elements of personality, cognitive, and social psychologyand focuses on the individual level of creativity. Woodman et al. (1993) have addedextra components to this model to express organizational creativity (Figure 4). Theystate that individual creative behavior is input for group creative behavior. Individualcreative behavior is a function of antecedent conditions, creativity, personality,knowledge, intrinsic motivation, cognitive styles and abilities, social influences andcontextual influences. Group creative behavior is, in turn, dependent on individual

Figure 3.Borghini’s circular model

regarding creativity inmulticulturalorganizations


327

Figure 4.Theory of organizationalcreativity

JMD29,4

328

creative behavior, group composition, group characteristics, group processes, andcontextual influences. Group creative behavior is input for organizational creativebehavior and together with contextual influences, such as organizational culture,reward systems, resource constraints, etcetera, it eventually leads to creative outcome.This model combines creativity aspects from different organizational levels(individual, group, and organization) on the one hand with various determinants ofcreativity from different psychological subfields (social, cognitive, personality, andorganizational) on the other, and is therefore probably the most extensiveorganizational creativity theory today.

In short, most of the theories regarding organizational creativity are derived fromsocial psychology. Only a few models combine knowledge derived from differentsubfields. Little is known about the validity and predictive value of these models.While discussing the various moderators and mediators of creativity investigated, thisarticle will use the three levels of creativity (individual, group, and organization) asproposed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989).

Determinants of creativityIndividual creativity. Individual creativity has been investigated by a great numberof psychological subfields. Initially, the purpose of these studies was to understandand describe the distinctive characteristics and traits of people thought to becreative (Barron, 1955; MacKinnon, 1965). As traits are still an important subject ofstudy in relation to creativity, there have been many studies of this subject andthese have produced many traits associated with creativity. Barron and Harrington(1981) list a large number of them: sensitivity to problems, high valuation ofaesthetic qualities, broad interests, attraction to complexity, high energy,independence of judgment, autonomy, intuition, self-confidence, playfulness, acreative self-sense, and the ability to accommodate apparently opposite orconflicting traits in one’s self-concept. Others added curiosity, persistence, causalreasoning, intellectual honesty (as cited in Rice, 2006), self-direction, stimulation,achievement (Rice, 2006), devotion to work (Hayes, 1989), and an internal locus ofcontrol (Woodman and Schoenfeldt, 1989). These aspects are all positively related tocreativity. On the other hand, conformity and power are negatively associated withcreativity (Rice, 2006). However, there is no clear evidence that the traits mentionedabove also have a predictive value for creativity within organizations (Woodmanet al. 1993; Hayes, 1989). Research has also stated that creative personalities havevarious personality traits. Some traits may be present in one creative individual butnot in others (Tardiff and Sternberg, 1988). Employers who select employees forcreative behavior based on perceived personality traits have not had much success.More effective in this regard may be selection based on self-evaluated creativity.Gardner and Pierce (1998) hypothesized that people with higher levels ofself-evaluated creativity tend to implement innovate ideas more frequently. A studyinvestigating which factors influence self-perceived creativity found that the amountof experience in management and the life cycle phase of the business venturemoderate the perception of one’s own creativity. Perceived creativity was highestwith three to five years of management experience in mature/declining businessventures (Pretorius et al., 2005). Other factors investigated were gender and businessventure size, but they did not influence the perception of creativity.


329

Besides the number of years of management experience, for example, it has alsobeen suggested that age is related to creativity. Major creative contributions are,apparently, most likely to occur in young adulthood, whereas minor contributions andnet productivity are most likely to peak in middle age. The curve for major creativecontributions falls sharply at the end of young adulthood, while the curve for minorones is relatively flat and decreases slowly after individuals reach their mid-sixties(Lehman, 1966; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988).

Intelligence was related to creativity as far back as the 1920s (Spearman, 1923). At thattime, it was also noted that intelligence is a necessary but not a sufficient factor forcreativity (Terman, 1926). Sternberg and O’Hara (2000) concluded from a review study ofintelligence and creativity that creativity is only weakly related to academic intelligence.This correlation only counts for IQ levels up to 120 or even lower. Higher IQ levels werenot associated with a higher level of creativity, so there seems to be a threshold to theeffect of IQ on creativity. Intelligence is often also related to divergent thinking, acognitive process in which a person generates many unique, creative responses to a singlequestion or problem. In contrast, convergent thinking concerns a systematic approach tofinding a single, correct answer to a problem (Psychology glossary, n.d.). Divergentthinking has been studied extensively and is often associated with the process of creativeproblem solving. It has, however, also been concluded that the most appropriate heuristicdepends on the type of question or problem to be solved. Most effective problem solvers, itseems, apply both thinking styles (Brophy, 2001). Other cognitive abilities associated withcreativity and determinants for cognitive thinking heuristics are fluency, originality,flexibility, imagination, field independence, and knowledge of heuristics to generate novelideas (as cited in Woodman et al., 1993). Besides the aforementioned cognitive abilities,domain specific knowledge, and expertise are also related to creativity (Woodman et al.,1993; Simonton, 1988; Ericsson and Charness, 1994; Redmond et al., 1993). Stein (1989)identified both positive and negative effects of domain knowledge on creativity. Domainspecific knowledge is necessary to produce creative solutions; on the other hand,knowledge can lead to functional fixation, which prevents creativity.

The creativity displayed in the past decade has also been the subject of research insocial psychology. One of the determinants for creativity from a social perspectiveappears to be affect. Affect refers to both emotion and mood. Several studies found apositive relationship between positive affect and creativity (Isen et al., 1985; Hirt et al.,1996; Vosburg, 1998). Amabile et al. (2005) also detected this relationship in workenvironments. Some researchers concluded that there may be a negative link betweenaffect and creativity, but their results are less consistent (Martin et al., 1993; Georgeand Zhou, 2002). Others suggest a curvilinear relationship between affect andcreativity, or found indirect support for a U-shaped relationship, or proposed aninverted U-shaped function (as cited in James et al., 2004). We may conclude that therelationship between affect and creativity is not entirely clear, nor is the duration ofaffect, although some scholars point out an incubation period for up to two days(Amabile et al. 2005).

Another main research topic is the effect of motivation on a person’s creativity.Intrinsic motivation is regarded as conducive to creativity, while extrinsic motivationis almost always detrimental (Amabile, 1983a). Some studies suggest that reward has anegative effect on intrinsic motivation and therefore negatively influences creativity(Hennessey, 2000). This conclusion is, however, contested by others (Amabile et al.,

JMD29,4

330

1986). They state that reward can sometimes even have a positive effect. Other factorsassociated with motivation and (indirectly) with creativity are control of attention, taskrestraints, and goal-setting. In the latter case, it seems that the higher the amount ofself-regulation, the greater the intrinsic motivation and creativity (Simon, 1967; Kanferand Ackerman, 1989; Amabile, 1983a, b).

Finally, research within more biologically oriented clusters, like neurological andclinical studies, indicates that there may be a link between testosterone and creativity(Reuter et al., 2005). Eysenck (1993) speculated that there is a genetic basis forcreativity based on differences in neurotransmitters and enzymes that are eventuallylinked to the DNA chains. Other neurological studies used EEG measures asdeterminants for creativity (Bekhtereva et al., 2001; Molle et al., 1996). These studiesassign a crucial role to the frontal lobes, especially in the right hemisphere. Little isknown, however, about which determinants influence individual creativity in thiscontext. Furthermore, clinical studies are mainly performed with clinical patients andare usually not representative for healthy individuals.

Regarding individual determinants for creativity, many different factors have beeninvestigated, mainly focusing on personality, traits, affect and cognitive heuristics.Some other fields remain relatively unexplored, such as biological factors.

Group creativity. Regarding group creativity, several potentially influential factorshave been studied. Choi and Thompson (2005), for instance, investigated the impact ofmembership change on group creativity. It appeared that open groups with rotatinggroup subsets were more creative than closed groups; the open groups produced moreideas and of a greater variety of idea types than did the closed groups. The newcomershad a positive effect on the total group and seemed even to increase the productivity ofthe “old-timers”. It should be mentioned, however, that the change in membership wasrelatively permanent in nature. In addition, the new members were already acquaintedwith the organization and had the same amount of task experience as the other groupmembers. It was suggested that the effectiveness of group changes on creativitydepends on factors such as timing, task experience of newcomers, group expectations,social fit, frequency of change, and the ability to collaborate and adjust.

There have been many studies of the effects of “informal” contacts on the creativefunctioning of organizations or teams. According to Kratzer et al. (2005), past studieshave found contradicting results. They reviewed several studies regarding the effects offriendly versus friendship ties within innovation teams. Friendship ties representcontacts that also take place outside the work environment, while friendly ties are boundto work settings. They concluded that friendly ties have a U-shaped relationship toinnovative team performance, while friendship ties only have positive effects on teamperformance. These findings imply that managers should attempt to foster formal aswell as informal contacts between their employees that preferably develop intofriendships. Others, however, suggested that strong group cohesiveness suppressescreativity, whereas weak ties facilitate it (Woodman et al., 1993; Perry-Smith, 2006).

In addition to the relationships between different group members, another factor isthe climate for creating favorable relationships. The climate model for creativity andinnovation that has been studied most is the model presented by West (as cited inMathisen et al., 2004). He suggests that four climate factors are essential for teams to becreative. First, there must be a clearly defined and shared vision that provides focus anddirection to the team members’ energy. Second, participation in decision making seems


331

important to increase the team’s commitment and the likelihood that its members willinvest in the outcomes of decisions. Furthermore, the environment must be perceived assafe, so that team members feel they can present new ideas without fearing criticism andridicule. Finally, there must be articulated and enacted support for attempts to introducenew and improved ways of doing things. The latter factor also interacts with thepreferred type of leadership. Leadership support and creative and collaborativeleadership appear to have a positive influence on creative work (Woodman et al., 1993).Wilkins and London (2006) defined the generally favorable climate for creative outcomeas one that includes learning orientation, psychological safety, and self-disclosure.Furthermore, many researchers emphasize the necessity of reducing conflict andcriticism in order to promote a creative environment (as cited in Nemeth et al., 2004).Nemeth et al. (2004), however, found evidence that groups encouraged to debate and evencriticize did not impede idea generation in brainstorming sessions. Permission to criticizeeven led to significantly more ideas than did brainstorming sessions where members didnot debate and criticize opposed ideas. Various other studies also found support for thisthesis in giving and seeking feedback. Even conflict appeared to be associated withcreative outcomes (Wilkins and London, 2006; James, 1995).

Besides factors specific to group climate, Woodman et al. (1993) concluded from aliterature study that creative outcome may be highest when the group structure isorganic and when it is composed of individuals drawn from diverse fields or functionalbackgrounds. These researchers add resource availability, group size, communicationpatterns, norms, roles, problem solving strategies, and social information process to thelist of group moderators for creativity. Paulus (2000) concluded from his literaturereview study that there are a number of factors that lower creativity in groups. Hedivided these factors in two groups, namely: social inhibitors and cognitive interferers.Social inhibitors are social anxiety, social loafing, illusion of productivity, matchingand downward comparison; cognitive interferers include production blocking,task-irrelevant behaviors, and cognitive load. Paulus also identified factors that leadto high creativity in groups, grouped into social and cognitive stimulators. Cognitivestimulators included novel associations, priming, attention, conflicts, heterogeneityand complementarities of group members, divergent thinking style, and incubation ofideas. Social stimulators were competition, accountability, upward comparison, andgoals. According to Farmer et al. (2003), positively perceived creativity expectations byfellow employees and self-sense of creativity also promotes group creativity.

Determinants of creativity in groups appear to be influenced mainly by groupfactors related to composition and processes.

Organizational creativity. Although Hemlin (2006) concludes that team leadership ismore important for creativity than organizational support, several case studies havebeen performed to determine factors that influence creativity on organizational level.Most common are cultural influences, resources availability, reward policies,organizational mission and strategy, structure and technology. Although the effectsare difficult to measure, the extent of their presence are all positively related tocreativity in organizations (as cited in Woodman et al., 1993; Burkhardt and Brass,1990; Paulus, 2000).

A case study of a relatively small enterprise (up to 30 employees) showed thatcreativity and innovation were promoted by avoiding hierarchy, building flexible workplaces, and emphasizing on cross-fertilization (Tekla, 1995). In addition, Paulus (2000)

JMD29,4

332

concludes that innovation will be inhibited when organizations are highly centralized orformalized, and when groups or individuals tend consciously or unconsciously to resistthe innovative process. Goncalo and Staw (2006) discuss the effects of individualisticversus collectivistic cultures on creativity. Harmony, group conformity, andinterdependency are promoted within collectivistic cultures, while in individualisticcultures uniqueness and group independence are valued. Study results have indicatedthat individualistic values contribute more to creativity. If creativity is an organizationalgoal, an individualistic culture seems preferable. Reiter-Palmon and Illies (2004)concluded from a review study that organizations that focus on planning ahead andidentifying potentially significant problems at an early stage, give their employeessufficient information and encourage problem solving activities result in more creativeoutcomes. Others added allocating time and resources for experimentation, providingcompetence-building opportunities, the presence of intrinsic reward systems, cohesion,some discretion in job activities, clear vision and goals, recognition of innovative efforts,and providing an atmosphere in which it is safe to share novel ideas as relevantorganizational factors for creativity (Ramus, 2001; Paulus, 2000). Sundgren et al. (2005)determined that the perceived creative organizational climate depends mainly on thefactors information sharing, learning culture, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.They postulated it as a path model (Figure 5).

Oldham and Cummings (1996) conclude that in addition to attempting to promoteorganizational creativity, management should consider both personal and contextualfactors to increase creativity. Highly creative employees perform best in complex andchallenging jobs that are managed in a supportive, non-controlling way. Employeeswith less creative personalities get stressed and irritated under such circumstances,leading to lower creative output. With respect to the determinants for organizationalcreativity identified, the organizations’ challenge is to design a context and strategy tomaximize creative achievement at work while taking individual differences intoaccount.

Figure 5.Path model for drivers oforganizational creativity


333

Promoting creativityAlthough extensive research has been carried out concerning the determinants forcreativity and the widely accepted importance of innovation and creativity, little isknown about whether creativity is trainable. In business training, the topics creativityand innovation are often avoided because they are more subjective (Carrier, 1999; VanVuuren, 1997). Most research on how to develop creativity has involved creativethinking techniques, for example brainstorming, attribute listing, and morphologicalanalysis (Riquelme, 2000). These techniques are helpful in generating a large numberof ideas in a short period of time, so that the chance of finding the golden idea increases(Gaspersz, 2005). Riquelme (2000), however, believes that these techniques are onlyeffective when the problem is clearly defined. Basadur et al. (1986) demonstrate thattraining organizational members in creative thinking brings about an improvement inattitudes toward divergent thinking. Although it is widely believed that utilizing thiscreative technique enhances creative outcome (Riquelme, 2000; Wood, 2003), thisassociation was not present here.

Another frequently used technique to generate a large number of ideas in a short time isbrainstorming. Mullen et al. (1991), however, found that groups using the brainstormingrules generate substantially fewer ideas than when the same number of individualsbrainstorm in isolation. This productivity loss in groups can be explained by social loafing,production blocking, and evaluation apprehension. Paulus and Yang (2000) suggested thatunder the right conditions, idea exchange processes in groups may enhance creativity.Their suggestion was based on a study where writing down ideas and subsequentlysharing them led to more ideas than individual brainstorming did. Furthermore, the degreeof attention paid by group members while sharing ideas appeared to be an importantfactor in generating more ideas after an incubation period of a few days.

Raynolds (1972) investigated whether creativity training enhanced free thinkingprocesses. The training consisted of a week-end at a mountain retreat devoted tonon-verbal and verbal exercises, stretching exercises, cognitive modeling, andinformation overloading. Students who participated in the creativity training perceivedthemselves to be more process orientated than students from the control group did.Pretorius et al. (2005) indicate in a more recent study that creativity education shouldinclude: techniques for facilitating creativity, removing barriers to being creative,developing critical and creative thinking, personal attributes, actions that facilitatecreativity, improving intuitive creativity, creative problem solving and opportunityfinding, including opportunity delineation and the generation of ideas, and evaluatingand prioritizing ideas. Besides a knowledge of creativity techniques, Smith et al. (2000)consider two other categories of knowledge that promote creativity:

(1) knowledge of the domain in which one intends to create; and

(2) knowledge of other domains, which can be useful for creating analogies.

This implies that domain specific skills can promote creativity, which, in turn,confirms part of the componential theory by Amabile (1983b) referred to previously. Inthis study, creativity relevant skills, intrinsic motivation, and the social environmentare also taken into account.

Gaspersz (2005) indicates a number of steps that can be taken by management topromote a creativity stimulating climate. Some of them were already mentioned asdeterminants for group or organizational creativity: promote open communication,

JMD29,4

334

include everybody in the innovation process to suggest new ideas, share knowledge,bring people from different disciplines together, create a climate with tolerance forfailure, set challenging targets, create time for creativity, and allow in-houseentrepreneurship. Others have added giving rewards (Weiss, 2001), setting clearvisions and goals (Shalley, 1995; Weiss, 2001), providing information and helpfulfeedback (Zhou, 2003), giving encouragement (Deci and Ryan, 1987), stimulating a risktaking environment (Woodman et al., 1993; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988), evaluatingprogress in terms of work and not in terms of outcomes (Mumford, 2000; Shalley, 1995),restricting constraints (Nohria and Gulati, 1997; Drazin et al., 1999), structuralmeasuring of creativity and making it part of process reviews, regular planning ofbrainstorming sessions, and making sure that team members have an equal status(Weiss, 2001). Finally, it has been suggested that creativity can be promoted bycreating an open, fun, trusting, and caring environment where new understanding isvalued (Rice, 2006; McAllister, 1995; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988).

From an environmental perspective, creativity appears to be enhanced when thework place is borderless, as this facilitates interactions and free chatting among teammembers (Haner, 2005; Hong et al., 2003). Besides free chatting, formal forums appearto be necessary to effectively share knowledge and also promote creativity. Ehlers et al.(2004) postulate that an office needs to look attractive in order to contribute to theperceived well-being of employees. Consistent with these findings, Amabile et al. (1996)stated that physical environments can enhance creativity. Furthermore, computerizedcreative support systems can be helpful in facilitating the creative process, althoughmuch research still has to be done to optimize these systems (Kletke et al., 2001).Creativity support tools could be useful in:

. collecting information through searching and browsing facilities and visualizingdata and the process;

. relating information;

. creating by thinking through free associations, exploring solutions, composingartifacts and performances, and reviewing histories; and

. disseminating results to relevant parties (Shneiderman, 2002).

In the foregoing we have mentioned several aspects of promoting creativity atindividual, group, and organizational level. These aspects focus mainly on training toimprove knowledge and cognitive heuristics and on taking away barriers forcreativity. Bharadwaj and Menon (2000) conclude from their study of 634 organizationsthat promoting individual creativity mechanisms as well as group and organizationalcreativity mechanisms leads to the best results when it comes to improvingorganizational creative outcomes.

Comments and suggestionsCreativity is regarded as a common good, a free resource waiting to be explored andexploited (Styhre, 2006). Some determinants of creativity, for example divergentthinking abilities, have been investigated extensively, whereas much less is knownabout others such as convergent thinking and biological markers (Brophy, 2001). Thispattern – extensive investigation in one subfield of creativity and almost a lack ofinformation in another – is present in the theoretical frameworks of creativity that


335

have been published as well. Multiple models have been developed from the social andorganizational psychology perspective, while creativity is still relatively unexplored inthe field of biopsychology. Moreover, many of the existing theoretical frameworks lacksolid foundations in experimental figures (for example the circular model formulticultural organizations by Borghini (2005)) or their tests produce contradictingresults (such as the effects of domain specific knowledge on creativity in thecomponential model of Amabile (1983b)). Extensive models that integrate creativityknowledge from multiple fields are also still lacking.

Regarding the moderators and mediators for organizational creativity that arecurrently being investigated, we must question to what extent they can be examined indiverse situations, as the results are often based on laboratory experiments. In othersurveys, they are often subjective and situational, as the assessment of creativity isperformed mainly by means of questionnaires. On the other hand, measuring creativitysolely in terms of output can overlook products that are not regarded as creative (Smithet al., 2000). What is regarded as creative in one environment may not be identified assuch elsewhere. It has been suggested that the perception of creativity depends on thecontent of the group norm (Adarves-Yorno et al., 2006). We can therefore conclude thatthere is a methodological obstacle to objectively measuring creativity.

Several tests have been proposed in the past for generating valid creativemeasurements. However, psychometric tests such as Torrence’s ‘Test of creativethinking’ are widely used but lack predictive validity (El-Murad and West, 2004) andexpert evaluations of creative products are highly subjective (Amabile, 1982). Othertypes of measurements are the biometric tests that include the measuring of theglucose metabolism in the brain during creative activity. These tests can, however,only be performed in laboratory conditions and have major time and cost implications(El-Murad and West, 2004). Amabile et al. (1996) developed a tool for assessingperceived stimulants and obstacles in organizational work environments. In order todetermine the climate for creativity, a number of perceptions of the work environmentare measured: organizational and supervisory encouragement, work group support,freedom, sufficient resources, challenging work, workload pressure, and organizationalimpediments. This tool is one of the few to measure creativity climate, but it requiresfurther validation. Tests that include all the relevant factors for creativity and arefurthermore objective are yet to be developed.

According to Kabanoff and Rossiter (1994), the majority of creativity trainingprograms include:

. training and practice with creativity-enhancing techniques; and

. attempts to change negative attitudes and problem solving styles in the directionof greater flexibility, openness, and humor.

Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of such creativity training programs.Various tests have also produced contradictory results for the effectiveness offrequently used enhancing techniques such as brainstorming. Research aimed atpromoting factors for creativity mainly focus on removing barriers to free thinking.

On the one hand, creativity is often described as the key to organizationaleffectiveness and a necessity for long-term success (Amabile and Conti, 1999; Porter,1990; Hitt et al., 1997). On the other hand, organizations are streamlining andstandardizing work to contribute to efficiency, performance, and customer satisfaction

JMD29,4

336

(Feldman and Pentland, 2003). In this perspective creativity and standardizationappear contradictory. Nonetheless, creativity is generally seen as a desirable processwithin organizations. We must question, however, whether this is always the case,because creativity can negatively affect the efficiency of existing processes (Gilsonet al., 2005). Besides possibly negative effects on organizational efficiency, creativityoutcomes might lead to evil, born out of negative emotions and/or negative goals( James et al., 1999). Little is known about these possibly negative aspects of creativity,a subject that requires investigation and theorization.

Because information in various domains about theories, determinants andenhancers of creativity is either lacking or inconsistent, many basic questions – forexample which factors influence organizational creativity, whether creativity is innateor can be acquired, and in which theoretical framework all this information fits – stillremain unanswered. What should be explored and tested in greater depth is a solid andvalid method for measuring creative outcome and creative processes. In addition, moreresearch is needed in various relatively unexplored fields of creativity, for examplebiopsychological factors. We also need more theorization and testing of hypotheses ofcreativity processes covering multiple psychological perspectives in order to acquire abetter understanding of the global concept of organizational creativity. With regard toour diverse knowledge about methods to promote creativity, it would be advisable toinvestigate whether the current traditional creativity training programs should beadjusted and what the effects on organizational performance will be.

ConclusionRegarding this article, it should be mentioned that the literature review was limited to thepsychological aspects of creativity. Creativity is, however, also an object of study for otherscholars, among others in the fields of sociology and organizational science (Gilmartin,1999). These aspects have not, or not entirely, been taken into account, but will surelysupply other relevant information and theories about organizational creativity.

As shown by this review, much has already been investigated with respect toorganizational creativity, but more still remains to be explored. Sharing informationacross the boundaries of different fields of study can be a first step towards developingmore extensive theories regarding the determinants and promoters of creativity.Reliable and predictive creativity theories obtained in this way could become a realistictool for recruiters to select employees with creative potential. Another researchsuggestion to boost creativity research and (indirectly) improve innovativeeffectiveness is to develop a valid instrument to determine creative outcomes, onethat will also be helpful in determining the effects of creativity training programs. Afinal necessary step is to move from creativity toward innovation, because creativityalone is not enough to produce an innovative organization. Research on how totransform creative ideas into innovative outcomes efficiently is vital for organizationsthat hope to keep up with their rapidly changing environment.

In general it can be concluded that there has already been done a great deal ofresearch into organizational creativity from the psychological perspective. Thishowever has until now not resulted in valid and reliable models and correspondingtheories in order to effectively boost creativity within organizational environments. Inaddition, more in depth and comparable research is still required as well as combiningresearch results from other scientific areas.


337

References

Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T. and Haslam, S.A. (2006), “Social identity and the recognition ofcreativity in groups”, The British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 479-97.

Amabile, T.M. (1982), “The social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 997-1013.

Amabile, T.M. (1983a), The Social Psychology of Creativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo.

Amabile, T.M. (1983b), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-76.

Amabile, T.M. and Conti, R. (1999), “Changes in the work environment for creativity duringdownsizing”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 630-40.

Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A. and Grossman, B. (1986), “Social influences on creativity:the effects of contracted-for reward”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50No. 1, pp. 14-23.

Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S. and Staw, B.M. (2005), “Affect and creativity at work”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, pp. 367-403.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the workenvironment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84.

Barron, F. (1955), “The disposition toward originality”, The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 478-85.

Barron, F.B. and Harrington, D.M. (1981), “Creativity, intelligence, and personality”, AnnualReview of Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 439-76.

Basadur, M., Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1986), “Training effects on attitudes towarddivergent thinking among manufacturing engineers”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 612-17.

Bekhtereva, N.P., Dan’ko, S.G., Starchenko, M.G., Pakhomov, S.V. and Medvedev, S.V. (2001),“Study of the brain organization of creativity: III: Brain activation assessed by the localcerebral blood flow and EEG”, Human Physiology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 390-7.

Bharadwaj, S. and Menon, A. (2000), “Making innovation happen in organizations: individualcreativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both?”, Journal of ProductInnovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 424-34.

Borghini, S. (2005), “Organizational creativity: breaking equilibrium and order to innovate”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 19-33.

Brophy, D.R. (2001), “Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent,convergent and combination thinkers”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 3/4,pp. 439-55.

Burkhardt, M.E. and Brass, D.J. (1990), “Changing patterns or patterns of change? The effects ofa change in technology on social network structure and power”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 104-27.

Burleson, W. and Selker, T. (2002), “Creativity and interface”, Communications of the ACM,Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 89-90.

Carrier, C. (1999), “Teaching creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship: on the necessity fornew pedagogical paradigms”, in Raffa, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 44th AnnualConference of The International Council for Small Business, Naples, Italy.

JMD29,4

338

Choi, H-S. and Thompson, L. (2005), “Old wine in a new bottle: impact of membership change ongroup creativity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 98 No. 2,pp. 121-32.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1987), “The support of autonomy and control of behavior”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1024-37.

DiLiello, T.C. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Maximizing organizational leadership for the future:toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 319-37.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1999), “Multilevel theorizing about creativity inorganizations: a sense making perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 286-307.

Eagly, A.H. (2005), “Refereeing literature review submission to journals”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.),Reviewing Scientific Works in Psychology, American Psychological Association,Washington, DC, pp. 59-77.

Ehlers, I.L., Greisle, A., Hube, G., Kelter, J. and Rieck, A. (2004), “Crucial influences on officeperformance”, in Spath, D. and Kern, P. (Eds), Office 21 – Push the Future. BetterPerformance in Innovative Working Environments, Vol. 21, Egmont vgs,Cologne/Stuttgart, pp. 54-168.

El-Murad, J. and West, D.C. (2004), “The definition and measurement of creativity: what do weknow?”, Journal of Advertising Research, June, pp. 188-201.

Ericsson, K.A. and Charness, N. (1994), “Expert performance: its structure and acquisition”,American Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 725-47.

Eysenck, H.J. (1993), “Creativity and personality: suggestions for a theory”, Psychological Inquiry,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 147-78.

Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P. and Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003), “Employee creativity in Taiwan:an application of role identity theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5,pp. 618-30.

Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a sourceof flexibility and change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.

Ford, C.M. (1996), “A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains”,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1112-42.

Gardner, D.G. and Pierce, J.L. (1998), “Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizationalcontext: an empirical examination”, Group Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 1,pp. 48-70.

Gaspersz, J.B.R. (2005), “Compete with creativity”, Essay presented at the innovation lecture“Compete with creativity” of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.

George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2002), “Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and goodones don’t: the role of context and clarity of feelings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87No. 4, pp. 687-97.

Gilmartin, M.J. (1999), “Creativity: the fuel of innovation”, Nursing Administration Quarterly,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 1-8.

Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J.E., Shalley, C.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (2005), “Creativity and standardization:complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 521-31.


339

Goncalo, J.A. and Staw, B.M. (2006), “Individualism-collectivism and group creativity”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 96-109.

Haner, U-E. (2005), “Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations”,Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 288-98.

Hayes, J.R. (1989), “Cognitive processes in creativity”, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. andReynolds, C.R.¼ (Eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 135-45.

Hemlin, S. (2006), “Creative knowledge environments for research groups in biotechnology.The influence of leadership and organizational support in universities and businesscompanies”, Scientometrics, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 121-42.

Hennessey, B.A. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the social psychology of creativity”,Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 293-8.

Hirt, E.R., Melton, R.J., McDonald, H.E. and Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996), “Processing goals, taskinterest, and the mood-performance relationship: a mediational analysis”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology., Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 245-61.

Hitt, H.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kim, H. (1997), “International diversification: effects oninnovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 767-98.

Hong, J-C., Hwang, M-Y. and Lin, C-L. (2003), “Chi and organizational creativity: a case study ofthree Taiwanese computer firms”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,pp. 202-10.

Hopp, V. (1998), “From crisis in education and innovation to social crisis”, Global Journal ofEngineering Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 125-9.

Isen, A.M., Johnson, M.M.S., Mertz, E. and Robinson, G.F. (1985), “The influence of positive affecton the unusualness of word associations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1413-26.

James, K. (1995), “Goal conflict and originality of thinking”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 8No. 3, pp. 285-90.

James, K.M., Brodersen, M. and Eisenberg, J. (2004), “Workplace affect and workplace creativity:a review and preliminary model”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 169-94.

James, K., Clark, K. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “Positive and negative creativity in groups,institutions, and organizations: a model and theoretical extension”, Creativity ResearchJournal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-26.

Kabanoff, B. and Rossiter, J.R. (1994), “Recent developments in applied creativity”, in Cooper, C.L.and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9, Wiley,Chichester, pp. 283-324.

Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (1989), “Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 657-90.

Kletke, M.G., Mackay, J.M., Barr, S.H. and Jones, B. (2001), “Creativity in the organization: the roleof individual creative problem solving and computer support”, International Journal ofHuman-Computer Studies, Vol. 55, pp. 217-37.

Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.Th.A.J. and Van Engelen, J.M.L. (2005), “Informal contacts andperformance in innovation teams”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 26 No. 6,pp. 513-28.

Lehman, H.C. (1966), “The most creative years of engineers and other technologists”, The Journalof Genetic Psychology, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 263-77.

JMD29,4

340

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonalcooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1965), “Personality and the realization of creative potential”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 273-81.

Martin, L.L., Ward, D.W., Achee, J.W. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1993), “Mood as input: people have tointerpret the motivational implications of their moods”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 317-26.

Mayer, R.E. (1999), “Fifty years of creativity research”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook ofCreativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 449-60.

Mathisen, G.E., Einarsen, S., Jørstad, K. and Brønnick, K.S. (2004), “Climate for work groupcreativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCS)”,Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 383-92.

Molle, M., Marshall, L., Lutzenberger, W., Pietrowsky, R., Fehm, H.L. and Born, J. (1996),“Enhanced dynamic complexity in the human EEG during creative thinking”,Neuroscience Letters, Vol. 208 No. 1, pp. 61-4.

Mullen, B., Johnson, C. and Sales, E. (1991), “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:a meta-analytic integration”, Basic an Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-23.

Mumford, M.D. (2000), “Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation”, HumanResource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 313-51.

Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988), “Creativity syndrome: integration, application, andinnovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 27-43.

Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996), “Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategiestraining on employee cognition, behavior, and affect”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 445-67.

Nemeth, C.J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M. and Goncalo, J.A. (2004), “The liberating role ofconflict in group creativity: a study in two countries”, European Journal of SocialPsychology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 365-74.

Nohria, N. and Gulati, R. (1997), “What is the optimum amount of organizational slack? A studyof the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms”, EuropeanManagement Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 603-11.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors atwork”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 607-34.

Paulus, P.B. (2000), “Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generatinggroups”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 237-62.

Paulus, P.B. and Yang, H-C. (2000), “Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity inorganizations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1,pp. 76-87.

Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006), “Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitatingindividual creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 85-101.

Porter, M.E. (1990), “The competitive advantage of nations”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68No. 2, pp. 73-93.

Pretorius, M., Millard, S.M. and Kruger, M.E. (2005), “Creativity, innovation and implementation:Management experience, venture size, life cycle, race and gender as moderators”, SouthAfrican Journal of Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 55-68.

Psychology glossary (n.d.), “Psychology glossary”, available at www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term¼Divergent%20Thinking (accessed 21 November 2006).


341

Ramamoorth, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovativework behaviour: development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 142-50.

Ramus, C.A. (2001), “Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas forenvironmental sustainability”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 85-105.

Raynolds, P.A. (1972), “Creativity training and managerial education for coping with turbulentorganizational environments”, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 317-19.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R. (1993), “Putting creativity to work: effects ofleader behavior on subordinate creativity”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 120-51.

Reiter-Palmon, R. and Illies, J.J. (2004), “Leadership and creativity: understanding leadershipfrom a creative problem-solving perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 55-77.

Reuter, M., Panksepp, J., Schnabel, N., Kellerhoff, N., Kempel, P. and Hennig, J. (2005),“Personality and biological markers of creativity”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 19,pp. 83-95.

Rice, G. (2006), “Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of employeecreativity: evidence from Egyptian organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59,pp. 233-41.

Riquelme, H. (2000), “How to develop more creative strategic plans: results from an empiricalstudy”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 14-20.

Shalley, C.E. (1995), “Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity andproductivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 483-504.

Simon, H.A. (1967), “Motivational and emotional controls of cognition”, Psychological Review,Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 29-39.

Simonton, D.K. (1988), “Age and outstanding achievement: what do we know after a century ofresearch?”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 251-67.

Smith, D.K., Paradice, D.B. and Smith, S.M. (2000), “Prepare your mind for creativity”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 111-16.

Shneiderman, B. (2002), “Creativity support tools: establishing a framework of activities forcreative work”, Communication of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 116-20.

Spearman, C.E. (1923), The Nature of Intelligence and the Principles of Cognition, Macmillan,London.

Stein, B.S. (1989), “Memory and creativity”, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. and Reynolds, C.R.(Eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 163-76.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988), “A three-facet model of creativity”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), The Nature ofCreativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 125-47.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1996), “Investing in creativity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51No. 7, pp. 677-88.

Sternberg, R.J. and O’Hara, L.A. (2000), “Intelligence and creativity”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.),Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 609-28.

Styhre, A. (2006), “Organization creativity and the empiricist image of novelty”, Creativity andInnovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 143-9.

Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J-E. and Selart, M. (2005), “Drivers of organizationalcreativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D”, R&D Management,Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 359-74.

JMD29,4

342

Tardiff, T.Z. and Sternberg, R.J. (1988), “What do we know about creativity?”, in Sternberg, R.J.(Ed.), The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 429-40.

Tekla, P.S. (1995), “Designing a culture for creativity”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 38No. 2, pp. 14-17.

Terman, L.M. (1926), Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA.

Van Vuuren, J.J. (1997), “Entrepreneurship and training: a prospective content model”,unpublished, pp. 1-15.

Vosburg, S.K. (1998), “The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent-thinkingperformance”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 165-72.

Weiss, R.P. (2001), “How to foster creativity at work”, Training & Development, Vol. 55 No. 2,pp. 61-5.

Wilkins, R. and London, M. (2006), “Relationships between climate, process, and performance incontinuous quality improvement groups”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 510-23.

Wood, A. (2003), “Managing employees’ ideas: from where do ideas come?”, Journal for Qualityand Participation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 22-6.

Woodman, R.W. and Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1989), “Individual differences in creativity: an interactionistperspective”, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. and Reynolds, C.R. (Eds), Handbook of Creativity,Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 77-91.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizationalcreativity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 293-321.

Zhou, J. (2003), “When the presence of creative co-workers is related to creativity: role ofsupervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 413-22.

Further reading

Brazeal, D.V. and Herbert, T.T. (1999), “The genesis of entrepreneurship”, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 29-45.

Montes, F.J.L., Moreno, A.R. and Fernandez, L.M.M. (2004), “Assessing the organizational climateand contractual relationship for perceptions of support for innovation”, InternationalJournal of Manpower, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-80.

Shaw, E.D., Mann, J., Stokes, P.E. and Manevitz, A. (1986), “Effects of lithium carbonate onassociative productivity and idiosyncrasy in bipolar patients”, American Journal ofPsychiatry, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 1166-9.

Corresponding authorWelko Tomic can be contacted at: [email protected]


343

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a review of creativity within organizations from a psychological

Documents