24 fI?IE TEAXNA(TIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMEN7T March

operation or approval is frequently welcome. As the map In this occasional preoccupation with matters whichbecomes niore detailed and comprehensive it enables the equip him to carry out his organizational responsibilities,researcher to understaind more completely how his he does not lose sight of his technical role. This stillorganization as a whole operates. Such knowledge is stands at the center of his definition of his job. He doesalways far from perfect, but it may be sufficient to permit not let his organizational education initerfere with hisa researcher to anticipate fairly well how certaini segments technical work. Unless he produces results from the benchof the organization will respond to his actions. KKnowin-g which attract respect, he is not likely to have the chancethis, he will also learrn where and how it is possible for him to use his stock of knowledge about his company. Technicalt3o elicit desired responses from his organization by growth and enculturation seem to go hand in hand, eachamrranging his olwnii aetivities appropriately. benefiting the other but neither sufficient by itself.

Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity*NORMAN KAPLANt

Summary---Until recently, theoretical discussions and careful level, there has been a tremendous concentration of effortconceptual analyses have been rare in the literature on creativity, on the "early" identification of creative talent in the gradeStudies of the organizational and environmental factors affecting ythe creativity of scientists have also been rare, but are becoming schools and high schools.more common. This paper reports on the factors considered im- Psychologists have been in the forefront of this renewedportant in influencing creativity in a number of research laboratories. interest in cieativity. By and large, they have enteredThe data were gathered through interviews with research directors, this field with the assumptions and the tools that haveadministrators, and scientists. Five factors are identified and been] used in other areas of psychology. Those psychologistsanalyzed. wedded to testing techniques have been busily engaged in

IfN recent years there has been a tremendous increase devisinig tests for creativity-many of these are modi-in the concerni with creativeness. With the exception fications of existing tests or have been developed fromf studies suchl as those by Galtonj it is onlly in the them. Psychologists with a clinical background have been

last decade or so that social scientists and others have energetically pursuing studies involvinig the Rorsehach,become interested in studying the creativeriess of relatively the T.A.T., as well as a host of other projective tests oflarge segmenits of the population. The early work of a personality. Prediction studies have used the logic whichdecade ago was con-cerned chiefly with the creativeness has become so familiar in many other areas, such as theof the artist, the poet, and the writer, but the expansioi prediction of marital success, in which a number ofof scientific research activities since World War II very individuals who are judged to be "successful" are studiedquickly resulted in a strong focus on the creativeness of to determine those factors which may be related to thisthe scienitist. Most of this work has been concerned with success. Theni various "test" groups are put throughthe identificationl of creative persons and with a search batteries of tests to see the extent to which they possessfor predictors of creative talent. This research has pro- the same characteristics. If they do possess these character-ceeded on two levels. First, on the immediate and some- istics with fairly high frequency it is then assumed thatwhat practical level, there has been considerable interest they are more likely to become successful. Thus, Flanagan'inl devisinig "tests" and other criteria for use in hiring and others have studied the behavior of many scientistsresearch persoinnel. Seconid, oni a slightly loinger-range and the conduct of their research and have selected

certain factors which seem to "go with" scientists judgedto be creative. Then they have incorporated these factors

MAanuscript receive(1 by the PGEMT, :Novemlber, 1959. This is iiito tests to be administered to prospective scientists.o;ne of a series of reports grow ing out of lonlg-termn studies of researchl General theoretical discussions of creativJeness and carefulforganizations. The suppoxrt, of the IJ. S. P'ublic Health Service,National institultes of Health,h D ivision of Research GXrants (RG 5050 conceptual analysis have on the whole beenl absent fromand RG 5289) is gratefullyr acknlowledged, this psychological literature with the noteworthy excep-

t Cornell Unlivrersity, 1thaca, N . Y.:£ F. Galtorn, 'English Men of Science, M2A;acmillanl and Co.,

Lonezdon, lung., l874; "tHereditaryr Geniuls"2 Macmillan andI Co+, 2 J~ C. Flanagan, et al., *'Critical Requirements for Research1.~ondon,} 2nld edition,1? 892. Personlnel," American Inlstitute for Research, Pittsburgh, Pa.; 1949.

1960 Kaplan: Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity 25

tion of several papers by Stein,3 Roe,4 and a handful they were interested. It is on information from theseof others. interviews that this discussion is based. It should be

Creativeness or creativity, as it is more widely called, recognized at the outset that these are preliminary datahas become largely a function of the varying measure- gathered in a pilot study, that they are not very precisement techniques used in the specific studies. Tests have nor are they quantitative. It should also be recognizedbeen made reliable and "valid" by sophisticated statistical that other social factors, not considered in this study, aremeasures but rarely is there any comparability between also very important in their effects on creativeness. Thestudies because so little is said about the concept of individuals being studied have spent many years increativeness itself. Sometimes the discussions would lead educational institutions and perhaps in other researchone to believe that the creativeness being measured is organizations and have had experiences which may havethat of an Einstein or a Newton. At other times it seems encouraged them to use their full genetic potential ofto be of a somewhat lower order, typically found in fairly creativeness, and to develop this genetic potential overlarge proportions of the population. We are beginning to many years. The fact that these scientist have chosen tohave many measures but we do not really know what we work in particular kinds of research organizations, onare measuring. particular types of problems, is yet another limiting factor

Certainly there has been less concern with and very much in any broad analysis of creativity. Nevertheless, it may beless empirical study of the organizational or the environ- instructive to inquire into the factors considered importantmental factors which promote or inhibit the creativity within the research organization itself for working withof the scientist in the research laboratory. The broader whatever creative potential is "given."type of environmental factor has received little more than It should be noted at the outset that while there is sub-passing attention-especially such factors as the import- stantial agreement among these research directors on theance of the school system, the home, and the community. general class of factors we shall be discussing, there isYet the society as a whole, and particularly its dominant considerably less agreement on the direction in which thecultural values, may be very important factors in en- factors work or on their effects. We shall want to suggestcouraging or discouraging the growth of creative in- hypotheses about them which might be tested moredividuals. Clearly, the emphasis in our own society on precisely in further studies.technological change and planned obsolescence hasplaced a high premium on certain kinds of innovation RECEPTIVITY TO NEW IDEASsometimes labeled creativity, such as new names for Among the factors most often mentioned as beingproducts, new labels, new packaging devices, or a slightly important in stimulating creativity within the laboratorydifferent design. It is this emphasis which is probably was a positive and enthusiastic reception to new ideas.responsible in part for the growth of interest in research Once said, this is, of course, obvious. If the termon "creativity." "creativity" means anything at all it suggests new ideas.The main concern of this paper is with the factors Receptivity to new ideas is frequently mentioned as an

considered important by those directing creative scientific important prerequisite for an individual to be creative.research. However, a plea will also be made from time to At the organizational level this may become somewhattime for more precise and more systematic conceptions more complicated. Individuals within the organizationof creativeness and for increased attention to the larger with varying degrees of receptiveness to new ideas mayenvironmental factors which may promote or inhibit mean that the over-all institutional receptiveness to newcreativity in the society at large. ideas may vary according to the nature of the particularThe factors to be discussed here are derived from project, the immediate supervisor, the importance of the

interviews conducted in some twenty research organi- project to the organization, and many other such factors.zations with directors of research, administrators, and Thus, something which is likely to be taken for grantedscientists at various levels in the research organization. from the point of view of the individual becomes lessThese men were asked how they defined creativity in their obvious as we look at it in the context of an organization.own laboratory, how they recognized it, how they rewarded Everyone interviewed agreed on the importance of thisit, and how they recognized its potential in prospective particular factor but further inquiry showed that there isemployees. They were also asked to discuss the environ- a fairly wide range in conceptions of what a new idea ismental conditions in their own organization which they and how it is received. In those research organizationsfelt promoted or inhibited the kind of creativity in which (whether in industry, government, or even universities)

committed to specific research projects and sometimes3M- I. Stein, et at., "A case study of a scientist," in "Case His- evenl larger-scale research programs, the new idea istories in Clinical and Abnormal Psychology," H. Burton and R. E. "wonderful" if it is "on the beam." That is, if the newHarris, Eds., vol. 2 of "Clinical Studies of Personality," Harper idea pushes the project ahead, if it gets it nearer to com-M. I. Stein, "Creativity and culture," J. Psychol., vol. 36, 311- pletion, if its does so more expeditiously, then it is a322; 1953.'wonderful new idea. If, on the other hand, the new idea4A. Roe, "The Making of a Scientist," Dodd, Mead anld Co., slkl o"ierc"tepoet ola ti ifrn

New York, N.Y.; 1953.islklto"ierc"tepoettolaitnadfeet

!26 IRE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEM11ENT March

direction and lead to very different kinds of answers from greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm-"that's athose expected and in quite different areas, then it is not wonderful idea, Joe"-and nothing further is done aboutso wonderful. The new idea must be relevant to be greeted it. It can be taken seriously and action can be taken towith enthusuasm. Given the nature of scientific research, begin a new project or to change the direction of thewhat is considered relevant at any given point is frequently present proj ect or implemenit it in some other fashion.an educated guess at best. However, many organizations Yet another way in which the new idea can be greeted isappear to be less than enthusiastic about new ideas where a negative reaction such as, "No, that's taking us off theit can be guessed that the relevance is not very close or beam; that's sidetracking us; let's not play around withdirect. any new ideas until we finish this."Even when the new idea is not considered completely Unlike the pencil and paper tests of creativity which

relevant to the current project, there is a fair chance that encourage the subject to think of as many new ideas asit will still be entertained and considered seriously for he possibly can, the situation in the laboratory is far moreinstigating new research projects. This is a common complex. We must take into account not only the way inoccurrence in the history of scientific research and appears which the idea is received and the reactions of the variousto happen fairly frequently even in larger organizations. people in the organization to it, but also the action that isHowever, the prodecures necessary for the establishment taken after the idea is put forth. Thus, new ideas may beof new projects, as well as the limitations of budget and stifled at the supervisory level, at the next level up, orpersonnel, may delay the instigation of a new project for a by the organization as a whole. In this latter case, theconsiderable period of time. Here again there is fairly idea may sidetrack the organization from its primarywide variation among laboratories. Some are fairly goal. Receptiveness to new ideas is not a matter offlexible with respect to budget, personnel, and the enter- personal taste (although that certainly may be a factor).tainment of nlew projects, and can get them started fairly It is a matter of the flexibility of the organization, itsquickly. Others must wait until the next budget year or goals, its personnel policies, and the availability of funds,for special allocations of fun-ds, or mulst proceed through personnel, and facilities. Without belaboring the point,a relatively culmbersome reviewing procedure before the it should be obvious that the level of creativeness of anynew idea can be tranislated into a research project. But given scientist, as well as the over-all level of creativenessevei-n a new project may be a source of considerable dis- in a laboratory, is related to the structure and socialcussion because it may lead to results which are not climate of a particular research organization. On theconsidered part of the over-all program of the research more psychological side, it might be relevant to determineorganization. For instance, if a research project which is whether people with different propensities for creativenessgeared to yield a product turn:s up a result which is react differently to persistent discouragement or en-scientifically irnteresting and which could lead to another couragement. This problem may be related in part to theproduct, the idea for this different product mnay be question of incentives which will be discussed below. Wescrapped completely because it is not relevant to the goals turn now to the second in our series of factors consideredof the particular organiization. Thus, relevance itself takes important in encouraging creativity.oui. a nuinber of dimenisions. It can be limited merely tothe oni-going set of projects, it can be interpreted in a PRESSURE TO PRODUCEmuch broader framework in terms of the over-all lonig- Now we come to an area simply crying for some realrange progranm of the orga-nization, or it can be viewed in empirical research. In my interviews, two apparentlyan- unirestricted fashioin. conflicting hypotheses have been offered. The first states

Another word for relevance is practicality. If the idea is that the greater the pressure, the more likely you arenot viewed as being practical then it may not be received to get something. The second states, "Keep the pressuretoo enthusiasticallv. As one industrial research director down, make it a relaxed atmosphere and you'll get muchput it, "In industry some attention has to be paid to the more out of a scientist than if you try to put on thepracticality of creative work. But that doesn't mean that pressure." These are not niecessarily diametrically opposed,we j'ust want a plodding lab. . . If the scientist in although they are frequently viewed in this fashionsuch an organization has come up with a number of such because the terms are not specifically defined. We needideas which were not viewed as "practical" in the past, to know much more about the nature of the pressure,is it very likely that h-le -will veenture to suggest similar who exerts it, how it is exerted, as well as the differentialideas i the future? Is it not more likely that he will reaction of individuals to the same types of pressure. The*:coml somlewhat discouraged from suggesting any new latter is the first modification offered by most researchideals, or alternlatively, that he will restructure his new directors; that is, they are willing to admit that whileideas alonlg a mnore pracetical line. (or change jobs)? In anly some individuals will do much better in one kind ofcase, it is clear that the nlotionl of wshat is relevant will pressure systemn, this may affect other individuals' creative-inlfluence the kinld of creativrity that mway be present or is ness adversely. Let ns try to examine some of t;heseencouraged in a particular research organization.k assumptions in somewhat greater detail.

Anlother obv7ious facet o:f this problem is simnply the Pressure may be defined as a psychological (internal)wvay inl whichl thlt ideI is receiv=ed. A& new idea can be state. "The individual feels compelled to do somnethinlg"

1960 Kaplan: Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity 27

is one way of thinking about pressure of this sort. Now may be considered sufficient whereas in others a halfthis compulsion may come from internal sources ex- dozen may be considered the norm.clusively or it may be the result of external forces. Almost Furthermore, it should be noted that one of the possibleeveryone agreed that in the last analysis the internal, consequences of pressure defined in terms of number ofself-motivated pressure was probably the most successful. publications, for example, may be to stifle creativity.However, some felt that the organization, through its This would occur when the individual scientist decidespolicies and supervisors, could do a great deal towards that the importance placed on the number of papers isbuilding this internal state within an individual. Others sufficiently great to warrant turning out a number ofof course felt that this would be wrong because it would "hack" pieces. Thus, the pressure of this nature maynot produce much more and might even result in a period actually result in less creativity while on the surface itof less creative work. In any case, one important question seems to bring about productivity.is, "How do you get people to feel compelled to do more The state of research and knowledge concerning theand to do it more creatively?" effects of pressure-as well as the very nature of different

Pressure may be exerted internally because of kinds of pressure-is such that it is not possible to statepersonality needs, early childhood development, and so any definite conclusions. Beyond the pious hope thaton. But it may also be exerted, and possibly sustained much more research will be done, very little can be added.if internally present, by one's co-workers of the same What we have tried to do here is to indicate some of thestatus level, by fellow workers of lower levels, and finally kinds of questions that need to be asked about the effectsby superiors within the organization. Pressure from of pressure on creativity in particular and then on pro-each of these probably has somewhat different effects on ductivity in general.different people, and very little is known about any ofthese effects. Perhaps more important is the question of TOLERATION OF "ODDBALLShow pressure is exerted by other people and it is to this Research organizations appear to differ quite widely inthat we turn next. that

* turnnethe matter of tolerating "oddballs." Some of the researchIn those jobs in which a given number of units aredirectors interviewed indicated that while they personallyturned out in a certain time interval, pressure can be had nothing against oddballs it would be very difficult

stepped up by setting a norm at a rather fast pace. Where i

the end product is not standard, however, it is far more to accommodate them in the context of their organization.l-ro * r *1 11 XI The emphasis on,and the necessity for, teamwork in thedifficult to set a daily or weekly production norm. But i

it is possible to set up an equivalent mechanism-this organization is such that the oddball might not cooperateusually takes the form of a progress report. If a progress sufficiently and in fact might be a focus of dissensionreport is required weekly, let us say, then a certain within the group. As one research director put it:amount of pressure is felt to get something done in that The creative person is a slightly odd individual-he is an oddball.I suspect that team work does not promote creativity and I suspecttime period. (Of course, many become expert at writing that too often people are picked for their abilities to work togethersuch progress reports to highlight a maximum amount of on a team in addition to their other technical abilities. We don'tquite go along with this as we do have a few oddballs around andproductiveness.) Other more or less formal mechanisms furthermore I don't agree that the oddball in a team necessarilywhich have a similar effect involve counting the number ruins the other members' morale-which is presumably one reasonof patents or patent applicatioas for a given time period, why organizations with teams are supposed not to like oddballs.

the number of publications, the number of papers de- The oddball is "different" but this difference is difficultlivered at professional meetings, etc. to define precisely. He may like to work at night insteadThe absence of pressure apparently can be found for of during the day; he may balk at the most routine

relatively long periods of time in some laboratories. I organizational requirements to fill out certain forms or tohave been informed by both the working scientists and follow certain procedures in obtaining materials, etc. Hethe heads of these laboratories that there is no specific may be considered odd in that he may not communicateevaluation in terms of the number of papers or any other anything about his work for months on end. He is some-measure of productiveness. It is simply a case of "doing times considered a very moody person, introspective, notthe job well." The presence of pressure is somewhat more very "friendly." He may be considered odd because ofdifficult to define insofar as the degree may vary con- the nature of the ideas that he suggests. Several examplessiderably. It would be necessary to establish some sort were cited to me of persons who just poured out newof scale where perhaps the necessity for a weekly progress ideas all of which were brilliant but slightly offbeat, withreport combined with the use of many of the measures only one in ten or in a hundred appearing to be practicalmentioned above would constitute high pressure, and an or worthwhile. The most frequently mentioned definitionannual report in which only one of these measures is of the oddball, however, is that he does not seem to "fit"noted might constitute a low pressure. There is, of course, into the general organizational pattern. He is not, to usethe additional complication that the actual number of the new popular phrase, an "organization man."any of these measures-that is, the number of papers or The more highly organized the research operation andthe number of patents-may vary from organization to the more "teamwork" is emphasized, the less likely it isorganization as a norm; in one organization a single paper that the oddball will be tolerated. This is becoming an

28 IRE TRI4AV8ACTIONS ON ENGINEERILVG MANAGEMENT M31arch

increasingly importanit problem as the notion of teamwork By "gutsy" this director meant ani atmosphere in whichin sscientific research grows in importance, especially in there was a lot of pressure to produce on a regular basisiildustrial laboratories. The problem is by Ino means just as a factory produces. We turn now to the fourthlimited to indusltrial laboratories, however, for it should factor singled out by research directors as importantbe noted that the oddball is ncot tolerated with any more in encouraging creativeity.enthusiasm- eveen in universities. Here there has beeniincreasing emphasis onI the ability of a prospective staff THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE PROBLEMS ANDmnember to get along witlh the other mnemibers of the staff CHANGE DIRECTIONSand to preserve the harimony of interpersonal relations in Once said, this appears to be highly obvious, especiallythe departnment. the freedom to change directions. However, this problenm

W,hat do we mieant by tolerating an oddball? As we have must be considered within the context of the organizationseeii, there are sone orga;nizations where the directors and its goals. As already noted in the first section on thewouid rather not have anl oddball around for fear of reception of new ideas, the niature of the over-all programdestroying the harmonyl affectinig the inorale of the and research goals of the organization may place limi-org,anizatiorn. Whern pressedl. these research directors have tations on the freedom to choose problems in the firstreplied in terms of the importance of the over-all effort instance and to change directions in the second. AWhereof the research organization and the necessity for sacrificing the end product desired is speeific industrial applications,the potentiall corntributiorn of such anl oddball for the or where the research goals are restricted by the invest-"greater good' of the organization. Trhere are, however, ment in and commitment to special areas of scientificother organizations in which the oddball may be said to research, the creative idea which is likely to alter thesebe tolerated, and these mav be organizations whieh place goals or prevent their attainment may not be greeted witha high premiumi on teamwork. There may be a deliberate the greatest enthusiasM.effort to have the best of both worlds where mnost of the The problem of being free to choose one's researchorgainizationi is highly organized anid has a fairlv high problems is far too complex to be dealt with in this paper.degree of conformity but where a relatively small number, The freedom to choose or change direction may or mayanywhere from on-ie to a hanidful, of oddballs are not be restricted at any one of a number of points. The'tolerated."t It is as if the organization were split in two freedom of the research director himself to lay out specifica-Fd the oddballs julst iiot expected to perform in the samee research areas may be restricted by the goals and policiesway=. If they cooperate with a particular team that is con- of the larger organization of which he is a part whethersi'dered fine. If they do :not cooperate that is perhaps not this be industry, government, or the university. Withinas good but, the benieficial effect may still be quite mnarked. these limits he may set out general areas for research andThey are not expected to produce as regularly as the rest allow senior scientists or laboratory heads freedom toof the staff and are evaluated in the light of quite different follow up the project in any way they please. Projectscriteria. It is usually a "richer" laboratory that can may be broadly or narrowly defined. The scientist inafford to have or feels that it can afford to have a few charge may have complete freedom to follow any particularoddballs. Their directors are willing to pay the price of technique or course of action so long as he sticks to thatkeeping a potenrtially creative person in the expectation project. Further dowln the scale we may find projectsthat :it will pay off ultimrately but they count on the vast which are rigidly defined, where the techniques are closelymiajority -who are inot oddballs to nmake the regular specified. Something similar, or even more marked is thecorntribuitions. questiom) of changing the direction once a particular

In still other organizations, the oddball is not only project has started. Again, this may be related not only to"tolerated" but he is encouraged. Of course, the degree of the goals of the organization but also to more practicalenicourageinenit mcay vary. An oddball miay be odd enough problems concerning budgets, availability of personnel,not to mind being considered odd in the first instance and and general allocation of resources. In any case, thenot being particularly encouiraged in the second. However, degrees of freedom with respect to a given problem mayit would be interesting to kniow the extent to which overt vary considerably from organization to organization, andencouragement miay stimulate fu:rther creative effort from within a given organization. It is suggested that creativitypeople verging on being "odd." in an organization setting is related to the degree of

Toleration of od(dballs is, of course, related particularly freedom afforded the scientist to choose and changeto the first fatlormention-ed previously, namely, the problems.receptivity to) new ideas, bult it is also related to the WTithout exception, research directors menltion thisseconld, the klind of p:ressures that exist inl the organiza- freedom as a highly important factor in the over-all levelttion As onte research dfirector putfit. of creativity in anl organization. Each director tended to

stress the importance of the particular level of freedomIl don't want a. bulnch of coenf-orming scienltists-It walt diffei; which existed in his own organization. But upon further

coces o)f opinion anld people who listen to one alnother. A "gut,syatmosphere iS Stifling to c.reativity and confining to thinlking, probing, it became clear that many organizations were

1960 Kaplan: Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity 29

committed to a concept of limited creativity at best. That and if it is not rewarded tangibly in whatever manner ofis, they would encourage creative ideas within fairly reward is customary in the particular organization, thisrestricted limits of programs and projects and goals of may further inhibit creativity. In considering incentivesthe research organization. Finally, we turn to the fifth and their relation to creativity, it is this relationship whichfactor mentioned most frequently by research directors, is probably even more important than the nature of thenamely, the problem of incentives. specific incentives themselves. Judging from the literature,

it is this very relationship which has been overlookedINCENTIVES FOR CREATIVITY almost entirely. In other words it might even be better

No research director likes to admit that very little to have fewer incentives, tied more closely to creativecreativity is encouraged in his laboratory, and they all ideas and creative research projects, than to have manytend to stress the positive aspects of their search for ways incentives, none of which operates directly to encourageof stimulating creativity. These directors like to stress creativity.the importance of the atmosphere that they have created Research is sorely needed to throw some light on theand are maintining in the laboratory as one of the most differential effects of the different types of incentivesimportant general stimulants to creativity. In addition, employed. In these interviews, especially with industriala number of other specific or limited stimulants are research directors, there seems to be a strong feeling thatfrequently employed. Among these special rewards might money is a universal incentive (especially in our society).be mentioned increases in rank or salary, special bonuses, Without denying the importance of money as an incentive,freedom to attend scientific conferences both in this it would be interesting to explore the relationship of thecountry and abroad, as well as a host of other similar various possible incentives for scientists as opposed toincentives. One of those frequently mentioned in in- general incentives used in other occupations. At certaindustrial laboratories which should be noted specially is stages in a scientist's career, incentives which can bethe concept of "free time." The general notion is that a translated into increasing prestige and recognition in thescientist may spend up to a certain percentage of the scientific profession may be at least of equal, if notorganization's time and facilities, and sometimes even its greater, importance than increases in salary. To couplemoney, working on any problem of his own choice. such incentives with increases in salary might be mostHypothetically, this problem may be completely un- effective. But it must be reiterated that we simply dorelated to any of the company's or organization's choosing. not know which incentive or which combination of in-Space does not permit us to go into the details of how this centives is likely to work best in different circumstances.plan seems to be working. It is discussed in greater detail There can be little question that in managing scientificin another paper.5 personnel we have taken over some of the general as-Even a cursory analysis of the circumstances in which sumptions operating in our society concerning incentives.

incentives are employed is very revealing. We find that The suitability of these assumptions should be examinedin the case of free time, the scientist is nominally en- more closely.couraged to use this free time for any problem, but the These, then, are the five factors which the researchrewards go to those scientists who "come up with" directors and many of the research scientists interviewedusable, practical ideas. The working scientist may see single out as important components of the organizationalfree time as a diversion from the immediate problem, but context which may encourage or inhibit creativity. Asif he comes up with a "good, practical idea," the payoff noted repeatedly, there is considerably less agreement onfrom this diversion is likely to be great; or, free time is the degree to which each of these is important or evenused, not for an unlimited range of possibilities, but for on the direction in which any particular one operates topossibilities closely related to the goals and research encourage creativity. We may recall, for example, theprogram of the organization. This immediately must discussion of the effects of pressure. Some research menplace restrictions on the range of creative ideas encouraged. were in favor of a high degree of pressure as an encouraging

Similarly, the range of creativity that is encouraged factor in creative research while others felt that a low-can be severely restricted when the rewards go only to pressure atmosphere is considerably more effective.people who have successfully pursued the practical idea, We have tried to indicate some of the environmentalthe idea suggested by the research director, or the idea conditions in the context of the organization whichthat has paid off in a practical product. As noted earlier undoubtedly have some effect on creativeness in scientificin our discussion of receptivity to new ideas, if the new research Unfortunately, we have not been able to indicateidea is greeted enthusiastically but never acted upon, how much effect or precisely what combinations of con-

ditions are necessary to produce different effects. These,however, are factors which must be taken into account in

5N. Kaplan, "The relation of creativity to sociological variables studying the creative process in an operating researchin research orghanizations," in Calvin W.h T5acyelotr,Procaeedings ofnther zratig hr r nobelayohrhcsity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah; 1960. may be of equal importance. However, these five factors

03 IRE TRANTSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMEN,VT March

appear to be the more importanit ones which have emerged itself may inhibit further growth of whatever creativefrom our inquiry to date: potential exists in the budding scientist.

To say that creativity cannot be studied in a vacuum1) Receptivity to new ideas, is banal. But as a sociologist interested in the organization2) Pressure to produce, of scientific research and its differential effects-one of3) Toleration of the oddball, which is certainly differences in the level of creativeness-4) Freedomn to choose problems anjd change the direc- one remains handicapped in the attempt to use creativity

tion of researeb, as a dependent variable because of its lack of specificitya) Incentives for. creativitvy as a concept. We need measures or indexes of levels of

creativeness in our owin type of study, and it would also beInI closing, it nay be well to emphasize again that to extremely helpful to know the conditions in which different

conisiider the creative process in the context of an operating types of personality or different types of incentives affectresearch organizationi is a som:rewhat restricted approach. different types of creativeness in the conduct of scientificWe look at the enid product of niany years of education, research. In this, as in other types-of prediction studies,experience, and life in a society which has particular we will finid that superficial prediction through the use ofcultural values and particuklar attituides toward creativity predictors which we do not quite understarnd is inadequate.in general. To the extenit that our educational system A deeper understanding of the problem is necessary. Anidinhibits creative thought by discouraging the oddballs to achieve this, both psychologists and sociologists willin the class, by reqluiring highly rigid study methods anid have to do a great deal of fresh and even creative thinikiiigchecklist-type examinaationis, the educational system as well as much empirical testing of hypotheses an-d ideas.

Role Concept of Engineering Managers*SIMON MARCSONt

Summary This paper contains preliminary results of a ques- To meet these objectives a series of studies on thetionnaire survey among engineering managers in a large electronics utilization of high-talent mnanpower in industry, govern-company. Engineering managers are divided into three levels and ment and universities has been undertaken by thecompared with respect to their degree of business and professionalorientation, their conception of authority, and their understanding Industrial Relations Section of Princeton University. Asof the problems of nonsupervisory engineers, one phase of this project, the Industrial Relations Sectioni

conducted a study of engineering managers in a largeO NE of the pressiiig nleeds of indlustry today is to electronics and engineering company. This study was

achieve the fullest anid most efficient use of its concerned with three major problems: 1) an analysis ofengineering resources. The engineering super- the needs of engineering supervisors, 2) a determinationi

visor m-iay be considered the most vital factor in achieving of the motivations of engineering supervisors, 3) a studythe full utilization of engineering potential. This paper of the degree to which the engineering supervisor is a)is concerned with the engineering manager's concept of involved in decision-making, b) ilntegrated into thehis job. The way the engineering supervisor views his job company, and c) communicated with through informationohviousl contribultes to the way he functions in his programs. The data relating to these three problems hasposition.Itv is hoped that, in contributing to knowledge been utilized here to analyze the engineering manager'sof the problems opf engineering managersn we are also perception of his role as a supervisor.making a contributo to the solution of problems in- The data for this study was obtained from a question-volved in raising the perforrmance levels of engineering. naire study of 616 engineering nianagers in a company

with plant locations from coast to coast. The sample of616 managers represents 83 per cent of the engineering

-Manuscript receivred by the PGSEM, I)ecern.ber 11, 1959. supervisors in this company. XEngineering managers, inr Industrial Relations Section, Dept. of Economics anld Sociology, turn constitute about 10 per cent of the total engineering

Princeton UJniversity,r Princeton, N. J., and Associate Professor of 2Sociology.t Rultgers University. New\ Brulnswick, N. J. manpower in this company.