garden variety-emerald article

Business Strategy SeriesMaking garden variety creativity a strategic priorityMilton Mayfield

Article information:To cite this document:Milton Mayfield, (2009),"Making garden variety creativity a strategic priority", Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 345 - 351Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515630911005628

Downloaded on: 03 August 2015, At: 20:47 (PT)References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 514 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Pieter Klaas Jagersma, (2009),"The strategic value of sustainable stakeholder management", Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp.339-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515630911005619

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:544911 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additionalcustomer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

Making garden variety creativity astrategic priority

Milton Mayfield

Introduction

Organizations today face greater turbulence and uncertainty than ever before, and they

must simultaneously compete on service quality and rapid innovation in a global

marketplace. These conditions demand ever greater flexibility from organizations and

their workforce (Amabile, 1988, 1996; J. Mayfield and M. Mayfield, 2008; M. Mayfield and

J. Mayfield, 2008). In order to meet these pressures, organizations will have to increase

innovation at all work levels and in all work activities by offering a creativity fostering culture.

Developing such a pervasive innovation culture can only happen when organizations fully

commit to developing worker creativity and provide the resources needed for this initiative.

In order to achieve this goal, organizations must make creativity a strategic priority.

Pervasive creativity creativity at all organizational levels in all work aspects is a key

success driver in todays service oriented, innovation fueled economy. Such creativity helps

meet the markets demand for high levels of customer orientation, and the need for

operational flexibility to match the rapidly changing business environment that most

organizations face. Ultimately, an organizations competitive advantage is driven by

continuous innovation and improvement. And in thriving organizations, such innovation

cannot be confined to only a few elite professional workers but must become a part of

everyones daily work life.

This paper presents information on the necessity and method for strategically prioritizing

worker creativity by presenting the concept of garden variety creativity, and then discussing

specific steps for implementing this priority.

Garden variety creativity your competitive advantage

In order for organizations to remain competitive and sustain needed innovation and

flexibility, garden variety creativity (Amabile, 1996; von Krogh, 1998; M. Mayfield and

J. Mayfield, 2008; Stafford, 1998) must become a strategic priority. Developing a culture of

garden variety creativity will help bring forward ideas fromworkers whomost closely operate

with daily processes and with customers. In turn, this democratization of ideas increases

worker involvement and generates performance-oriented innovation. In short, garden variety

creativity creates a bottom-up approach to process and organizational improvement.

Garden variety creativity occurs when workers develop new ways to improve their own job

processes and outcomes (von Krogh, 1998; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008; Stafford,

1998). It is a local creativity that provides greater organizational flexibility at operational

levels, and thus creates more innovation in daily work situations. Such innovations given

the proper environment and strategic support will arise spontaneously in response to

given work problems or necessities. This creativity is drawn from a workers job experiences,

and must be supported and nurtured by an organizations culture, top management, direct

DOI 10.1108/17515630911005628 VOL. 10 NO. 6 2009, pp. 345-351, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1751-5637 j BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES j PAGE 345

Milton Mayfield is Associate

Professor of Management

at Texas A&M International

University, Laredo, Texas,

USA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

supervisors, and peers (Martins and Terblanche, 2003; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008;

Schein, 1989; Tierney et al., 1999; Williamson, 1997).

Garden variety creativity is different from the most often discussed creativity type

high-level creativity. While most attention is focused on high-level creativity, such innovation

is very different from garden variety creativity. High-level creativity is practiced by a small

number of highly paid and trained specialists. In comparison, garden variety creativity can

occur at all organizational levels. High-level creativity has long development times

sometimes requiring years to complete. Alternatively, garden variety creativity occurs

frequently, often arising several times a day from a single worker. High-level creativity

workers often require specialized work environments to be successful. With the proper

organizational support, garden variety creativity can occur in any work setting. High-level

creativity leads to large scale, organizational changes. In contrast, garden variety creativity

leads to smaller, incremental changes (Amabile, 1988, 1997; Amabile et al., 1996; Mayfield,

2009; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008).

For most organizations, garden variety creativity is more relevant to performance than high

level creativity. A few, elite organizations such as Apple, Google, Sony, and Pioneer

depend on high level creativity for their long-term success. But these organizations are rare

and noted globally for their innovation-focused strategy (Hargadon and Sutton, 2000;

Markides, 1998; Nonaka and Kenney, 1991; Nonaka, 1989). For most organizations, such

creativity is not their core competence, and the benefits of high level creativity are limited

(Amabile, 1988; Martins and Martins, 2002; Nonaka, 1989, 1990a; Wang and Ahmed, 2004).

However, all organizations will benefit from the incremental improvements and increased

flexibility that garden variety creativity brings. Garden variety creativity drives these benefits

and adds organizational value by improving operational efficiencies and flexibility that

should be valued by all organizations (von Krogh, 1998; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008;

Stafford, 1998).

Garden variety creativity enriches organizational outcomes by changing the way that

workers perform their tasks. While these process improvements will differ across

organizations, and even between workers within an organization, there are a few common

substantial enhancements that you can expect to see. This added value arises because

resource utilization will be increased when workers find better (and more creative) ways to

use existing resources. You can also expect customer satisfaction increases as workers find

new and better ways to meet customer demands. Also, worker creativity will help develop

new operational processes that better meet organizational goals.

Such processes may come from individual innovations or when small groups of workers

collaborate. These processes may include developing a new way to stack and place

inventory so that is easier to reach products while requiring less room for the items. Garden

variety creativity also takes place when a worker arranges a waiting area to be more

accommodating for customers, or a new way to organize a computer file system. In short,

there are many possibilities for workers to improve workplace outcomes. These

improvements are based on the workers intimate (often tacit) knowledge of the

workplace, and fostered by an organizations strategic support for such creativity

(Mayfield et al., 2008; Nonaka and Kenney, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1991; Thomas

and Allen, 2006).

Unleashed garden variety creativity also enhances individual worker outcomes in addition to

organization focused outcomes. When supported in creative endeavors, employees

discover ways to become more efficient at their assigned tasks, thus increasing their

productivity and the quality of their daily performance. As workers become more creative,

they can better tailor output to meet changing demands thus improving their effectiveness

and efficiency. A more creative workplace also raised worker moral and commitment, and

these improvements translate into higher job satisfaction and lower turnover (Amabile, 1993,

1998; Mayfield, 2009; J. Mayfield and M. Mayfield, 2008; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004).

As with organizational process renovation, there are many options possibilities for boosting

individual worker outcomes through increased garden variety creativity. Many of these

PAGE 346 jBUSINESS STRATEGY SERIESj VOL. 10 NO. 6 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

refinements will be simple operational efficiencies, such as discovering a shorter sales route.

However, there are other benefits from increased creative flow. One such major benefit is

that creative output can become a positive feedback loop. As workers see productive

outcomes from their innovations and realize that these innovations are valued and

supported by management employee self-efficacy rises and employees will be more

willing to undertake additional creative endeavors (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004; Nam and

Tatum, 1997; Pajares, 2002; Zaltman et al., 1973). Relatedly, this feedback loop also

incorporates the valuable step of tacit knowledge sharing when individual employees

engage in joint problem solving and exchange previously circumspect expertise (Mayfield

et al., 2008; Nonaka and Kenney, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1991; Nonaka, 1989; Thomas

and Allen, 2006).

How to make garden variety creativity a strategic priority

In order to foster and sustain worker creativity, organizations must take initiatives to make it a

strategic priority. Fulfilling all of these steps is necessary for a strong foundation in any

successful strategic initiative for developing worker creativity. Results may not be

immediately apparent, as is the case with any new large scale objective, but commitment

to this process will lead to rich rewards. These steps as this section will detail include

showing support for the plan from the highest organizational levels, communicating this

support, removing creativity blocks, providing needed resources, and restructuring the

workplace to foster creativity.

The first step is showing support at the organizations highest levels for worker garden

variety creativity. This endorsement signals top managements commitment to fostering

worker creativity, and these leaders willingness to provide the resources for such activities.

However, top management must follow through on these promises or risk alienating the

workforce and reducing worker creativity and morale. These leadership messages provide

direction for middle managers and front-line supervisors when they set and communicate

their own managerial goals. And it is their guidance that directly effects the workers

creativity (Amabile, 1988; Glor, 1998; Mayfield, 2009; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004; Stoker

et al., 2001).

Even when top management fully supports this initiative, this message must still be clearly

communicated to all organizational levels and workers. Such communication must come

from direct actions (communicating by doing) as well as direct communication

(communicating by telling). Initially, this support should come as a direct communication

stating how creativity is a necessary ingredient to the organizations success. Such a

communication should be directed to leaders, workers, and all organizational stakeholders.

Reinforcement messages may be directed at organizational shareholders and customers so

that they understand how such changes will improve the organization and how these

improvements will be valuable to the stakeholders.

This communication process must continue by introducing organizational policies and

structures for sharing, promoting, evaluating, and refining creative initiatives. Simply put, the

garden variety creativity process is a continuous feedback loop which substantially

reinforces organizational learning. At the most basic level, clearly designating and

communicating the rewards for creative work will go far in shaping worker behavior toward

more creative endeavors. In conjunction with such policies, a public recognition system

should be put in place to encourage garden variety creativity and establish a culture of

innovation. Also, organizational structures (such as wikis, town meeting exchanges, etc.)

that facilitate creative information interchange will bolster tacit knowledge sharing (Mayfield

et al., 2003, 2008; Nonaka, 1990b; Nonaka and Kenney, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1991;

Thomas and Allen, 2006).

Beyond communication processes, there are specific actions that must take place to

promote worker creativity first among these processes is removing creativity blocks. A

major inhibitor to worker creativity is the pressure that comes from unnecessary deadlines.

While timetables are productive and inevitable, many deadlines are set arbitrarily and with

VOL. 10 NO. 6 2009 jBUSINESS STRATEGY SERIESj PAGE 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

unrealistically short completion targets. When such deadlines exist, creativity is

compromised since workers energies must be focused on quick turnaround time rather

than inventive ways to complete better processes. Organizational policies that promote

unnecessary conformity can be another creativity killer. Such policies will require revamping

and perhaps removal to encourage increased worker innovation. Finally, efforts must be

made to stop negative politics that hinder creative activities and collaboration (Amabile,

1988, 1997, 1998; J. Mayfield and M. Mayfield, 2008; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008).

Once creativity blocks have been removed, management must actively nurture worker

innovation. Some of this support will already be in place if top management has properly

communicated (on an ongoing basis) its commitment to increasing worker creativity. But

managerial support cannot stop at simple communication. Organizational motivation for worker

creativity efforts must be present through encouragement, recognition, and monetary

incentives. Supervisors must also be trained and rewarded for supporting worker creativity.

This strategic implementation cannot be underestimated becausemanagers direct support for

worker creativity is vital to the growth of worker creativity it is the direct supervisor that will

have the greatest effect on worker creativity (Dundon and Pattakos, 2001; Kramer, 2006; Lee,

2008; Mayfield, 2009; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004, M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008; Nam

and Tatum, 1997; Stoker et al., 2001; Tierney et al., 1999). Finally, peer encouragement through

work group support is necessary for long-term sustainability of these new activities (von Krogh,

1998; J. Mayfield and M. Mayfield, 2008; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008; Stafford, 1998).

Again, all of these inputs are factors in a continuous feedback communication system.

Ultimately, the nature of work assignments and organizational structure must be examined

and possibly changed to fully promote worker creativity. While this step is the most

challenging in the strategic initiative process, it is potentially the most advantageous. By

changing the fundamental nature of the workplace (i.e. rewards, goal setting, information

sharing, etc.), you will be setting a platform for continuing innovation that will transform your

organization into one that is capable of meeting the daily and disruptive changes present in

turbulent business environments. In order to make your workplace one suitable for

continuous creativity, needed resources must be provided for workers to be creative. More

importantly, workers must be given the autonomy to engage in creative activities if they do

not have the ability to do their tasks with equifinality, they will have limited opportunities for

creativity. And as much as possible the work itself must be motivational so that workers have

the internal desire to be creative (Dundon and Pattakos, 2001; Glor, 1998; J. Mayfield and

M. Mayfield, 2008; M. Mayfield and J. Mayfield, 2008; Nonaka and Kenney, 1991; Zaltman

et al., 1973).

Figure 1 provides a graphical depiction of the responsibilities different organizational levels

must undertake in order to strategically implement and support garden variety creativity.

Conclusion

In order to successfully compete, organizations must make creativity a strategic priority.

Todays business environment is constantly changing in complex and unexpected ways.

This environment also places a premium on customer service because very few

organizations can compete simply on their products or services since substitutes are

constantly emerging. Instead, your organizations capabilities to deal with customers and

take advantage of brief and transitory opportunities will make the difference in your

organizations success. To meet these demands, employees at all levels must be flexible and

creative in meeting emerging business conditions. Such creativity can only emerge when

organizations prioritize and support worker innovation.

This priority must be supported throughout the organization on a continuous basis. While

such an initiative has to start from an organizations top, it must carry through at all

organizational levels. Such pervasiveness requires support from direct managers: those

leaders who will either motivate worker creativity or kill it before any organizational benefits

can emerge. Worker creativity also requires providing the communication and material

resources to stimulate and sustain worker creative activities. This latter premise includes


Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

such employee benefits as tuition reimbursement and day care. And by providing such

resources, the organization is also helping to develop the necessary organizational loyalty to

foster a culture of creativity.

While these steps will take time and commitment to come to fruition, garden variety creativity

offers many benefits for positive organization wide outcomes. Most desired, increased

creativity will lead to higher organizational performance and productivity. It can also increase

customer satisfaction through a better match of customer desires and delivered services.

Finally, a more creative atmosphere will lead to increased worker morale, attendance,

retention, and job satisfaction all important metrics of organizational financial

performance.

The process for making creativity a strategic priority is simple if not as easy to actually

implement. First there must be a sincere commitment to increasing worker creativity at top

management levels. Thereafter, this commitment must be clearly communicated to all

organizational members and stakeholders on an ongoing basis. Finally, there are three areas

to concentrate on when targeting this strategic focus: creativity blocks must be removed;

creative work must be supported through appropriate resources; and the nature of work

must be made more conducive to worker creativity.

Such a strategic initiative will help boost the organization to a world-class status. While

committing to increasing garden variety creativity will take effort, it is imperative to thrive in a

globally competitive marketplace. Once in place, the organization will experience

performance improvements at all organizational levels both in output and efficiency.

And after it is established, the new creative atmosphere will lead to a positive learning cycle

where creativity is sustained and celebrated.

Figure 1 Strategic implementation responsibilities


Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

References

Amabile, T.M. (1988), A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research in

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, S 123, p. 167.

Amabile, T.M. (1993), Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation in the workplace, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 185-201.

Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview

Press, Boulder, CO.

Amabile, T.M. (1997), Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you

do, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 39-58.

Amabile, T.M. (1998), How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 76-87.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), Assessing the work environment

for creativity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84.

Dundon, E. and Pattakos, A.N. (2001), Leading the innovation revolution: will the real Spartacus stand

up?, Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 48-52.

Glor, E.D. (1998), What do we know about enhancing creativity and innovation? A review of literature,

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, available at: www.innovation.

cc/peer-reviewed/creativ7.htm (accessed July 17, 2004).

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (2000), Building an innovation factory, IEEE Engineering Management

Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 17-23.

Kramer, M.W. (2006), Communication strategies for sharing leadership within a creative team: LMX in

theater groups, Sharing Network Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, Vol. 4, Information Age

Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Lee, J. (2008), Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, p. 670.

Markides, C. (1998), Strategic innovations in established companies, Sloan Management Review,

Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Martins, E. and Terblanche, F. (2003), Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and

innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.

Martins, E. and Martins, N. (2002), An organisational culture model to promote creativity and

innovation, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 58-65.

Mayfield, J. (2009), Motivating language: a meaningful guide for leader communications,

Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-11.

Mayfield, J. and Mayfield, M. (2008), The creative environments influence on intent to turnover,

Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 41-56.

Mayfield, M. and Mayfield, J. (2004), The effects of leader communication on worker innovation,

American Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 46-51.

Mayfield, M. and Mayfield, J. (2008), Leadership techniques for nurturing worker garden variety

creativity, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 976-86.

Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J. and Lunce, S. (2003), Human resource information systems: A review and

model development, Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 139-52.

Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J. and Lunce, S. (2008), Increasing tacit knowledge sharing with an HRIS,

in Torres-Coronas, T. and Arias-Oliva, M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Human Resources Information

Systems: Challenges in E-HRM, Information Science Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.), Hershey,

PA.

Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1997), Leaders and champions for construction innovation, Construction

Management and Economics, Vol. 259 No. 2, pp. 259-70.

Nonaka, I. (1989), Redundant, Overlapping Organization: A Japanese Approach to Managing the

Innovation Process, Center for Research in Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,

CA.


Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

Nonaka, I. (1990a), Redundant, overlapping organization: a Japanese approach to managing the

innovation process, California Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 27-38.

Nonaka, I. (1990b), Managing globalization as a self-renewing process: experiences of Japanese

MNCs, Managing the Global Firm, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 69-94.

Nonaka, I. and Kenney, M. (1991), Towards a new theory of innovation management: a case study

comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 67-83.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1991), The knowledge creation company, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 96-104.

Pajares, F. (2002), Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy, available at: www.des.

emory.edu/mfp/eff.html (accessed March 13, 2009).

Schein, E. (1989), Corporate culture is the key to creativity, Business Month, May, pp. 73-5.

Stafford, S. (1998), Capitalizing on careabouts to facilitate creativity, Creativity and Innovation


Stoker, J.I., Looise, J.C., Fisscher, O.A.M. and De Jong, R.D. (2001), Leadership and innovation:

relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 1141-51.

Thomas, K. and Allen, S. (2006), The learning organisation: a meta-analysis of themes in literature,

The Learning Organization: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 123-39.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999), An examination of leadership and employee

creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 591-620.

von Krogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,

pp. 133-53.

Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), The development and validation of the organisational

innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis, European Journal of Innovation


Williamson, B. (1997), Culture, creativity and learning, paper presented at the 14th Eucen Conference:

Encouraging Creativity and Innovation.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbeck, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Further reading

Abadie, A. (2005), Causal inference, in Kempf-Leonard, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social

Measurement, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 259-66, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/B7GG1-4FV52TR-6G/2/d1c437bc2dca1bff4ad757f045d7376a

Corresponding author

Milton Mayfield can be contacted at: [email protected]


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. M. MayfieldBusiness/Management 170-176. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

elhi

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:47

03

Aug

ust 2

015

(PT)

garden variety-emerald article

Documents