Upload
eric-f
View
222
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Special Issue of Creativity and Innovation Management
Organizing Creativity: Creativity andInnovation under Constraints
Guest edited by:Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, Open University of the Netherlands, The NetherlandsEric F. Rietzschel, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Background
Today’s dynamic business environment requires firms to constantly adapt in order to survive. Asa result of continuously changing demands, organizations have to adjust and reorientate,
innovate, and adopt new technologies. Creative ideas are at the root of invention and innovation(Woodman, Sawyer & Griffen, 1993; Amabile et al., 1996). Hence, leaders and managers espousecreativity as an important goal that must be nurtured and facilitated (Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo2012). Nevertheless, organizing creativity in organizations remains somewhat enigmatic to schol-ars. Creative organizations are often associated with spaces characterized by freedom, autonomy,weak rules and few boundaries. For example, this is reflected in Google’s workplace design, withthe office as a playground in which self-expression is encouraged. However, most organizationalactors still have to operate within the constraints and boundaries imposed by the organization.These constraints can easily be experienced as hampering the freedom and creativity of employees.Then again, constraints can also be perceived as challenging. They might entice employees to finda creative new way of circumventing obstacles and dealing with organizational impediments. Forexample, in an interview with Fast Company, one of Google’s top managers states that ‘engineersthrive on constraints. They love to think their way out of that little box: “We know you said it wasimpossible, but we’re going to do this, this, and that to get us there” ’ (Salter, 2008).
This paradoxical role of constraints for creativity (hampering versus enticing) calls for furtherelaboration and more research. Several promising avenues of study can be identified.
• Firstly, more research is needed that refines our understanding of what constraints are, and howthey affect creative behavior. Behavioural psychologists suggest that creative imagination seemsto work best when one is confronted with explicitly understood constraints (Kamoche & Pina eCunha, 2001; Kelly & Leggo, 2008). Studies in this line mainly refer to mental constraints, i.e.artificial constraints adopted as scaffolding to generate creativity. The workplace might poseconstraints of a different nature, i.e. more practically oriented, such as workload pressure, budgetlimitations, or demands from other stakeholders inside and outside of the organization. Does thespecific nature of constraints impact their effect on creativity? Do we need to distinguish betweendifferent types of constraints?
• Secondly, more research is needed that explores the nature of the creative process itself.Existing studies typically regard creativity as an output variable, and do not take intoaccount that creativity encompasses a process from initial idea to creative outcome. Severalstudies have shown that creativity can be viewed as a multistage process. Little is knownabout whether and how constraints differentially impact the various stages of the creative
100 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 22 Number 1 201310.1111/caim.12010
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
process. Furthermore, De Dreu, Baas, and Nijstad (2008) argue that creativity can be attainedthrough flexible thought or through persistence. It is possible that constraints exert differenteffects on creativity depending on which cognitive strategy or pathway they use to attaincreative outcomes.
• A third avenue of further research is related to the idea that the concept of ‘creativity’ can beapproached from different angles. There might be a difference between individuals feelingcreative and actually being creative at the workplace. It would be valuable to engage inadditional research that explores various aspects and interpretations of the creativity concept,and the role of constraints for each conceptualization.
• Fourthly, studying overall creative behaviour of employees might be an imprecise and unfo-cused way of operationalizing a complex phenomenon like creativity. To really get a grasp ofwhat is going on at the workplace scholars might need to look at the specific tasks that arerequired on the job. Tasks involving incremental improvements might ask for fewer (or other)constraints than tasks of a more radical nature. Alternative relevant categorisations of tasksmight be the level of expertise that is needed to carry them out, or the extent to which aconstraint limits only the creative capabilities/output of a certain individual or the creativecapabilities/output of the entire organization. More studies are needed that explore theworking of constraints on the task level.
• Fifthly, an impressive body of research has indicated the importance of organizational factorsthat facilitate creativity. Factors influencing creativity are likely to interact in complex ways. Wecannot assume that the absence of a supportive organizational factor, e.g., challenging work,indicates the presence of a corresponding constraint, e.g., unchallenging work. The questionarises as to whether and how the impact of various facilitating factors differs from the impact oftheir negative twin, i.e. the constraining factors that indicate the absence of certain facilitatingfactors.
Possible topics
This call aims to stimulate debate and discussion around the nature and dynamics of orga-nizational creativity under constraints. This special issue invites submissions from a variety ofdisciplines and perspectives. In particular, we encourage submissions that address issues related(but not limited) to the following areas:
• The specific nature of constraints and their effects on creativity;• The effects of constraints on the various stages of the creative process;• The role of constraints in light of various aspects and interpretations of the creativity concept;• Exploration of the effects of constraints with regard to the specific nature of the task at hand;• Exploration into whether and how the impact of various facilitating factors differs from the
impact of their negative twin, i.e. the constraining factors that indicate the absence of certainfacilitating factors;
• Exploration of interaction effects with regard to constraints, e.g. the interaction betweenindividual-level and organizational constraints;
• Exploration of the interplay of organizational constraints with business innovation and entre-preneurial action;
• Study of the way constraints are dealt with by employees at different management levels, suchas top, middle, and first-line management;
• In-depth studies of the working of specific constraints in practice, e.g. power structure andpolitics, bureaucracy, workload pressure, time pressure, resource constraints, etc.;
• Study of how groups and teams deal with organizational constraints;• Study of constraints under different models of organizational behaviour, such as autocratic,
custodial, supportive, and collegial;• Study of constraints in projects and temporary organizations;• Study of constraints in different countries and cultures.
Research methods
We welcome both conceptual/theoretical and empirical contributions with a variety of researchstrategies, including surveys, multi-level studies, experiments, case studies and reviews.
CALL FOR PAPERS 101
Volume 22 Number 1 2013© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Deadline and Submissions
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the CIM author guidelines, and need to be sub-mitted through the online submission system of CIM: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cim.The deadline for the submission of papers is 15 June 2013. When submitting it is extremelyimportant that you clearly state that your submission is meant for the special issue.
Contacts
The Guest editors are happy to discuss ideas for papers and can be emailed at the belowaddresses:Marjolein Caniëls: [email protected] Rietzschel: [email protected]
References
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996) Assessing the Work Environment forCreativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–84.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Baas, M. and Nijstad, B.A. (2008) Hedonic Tone and Activation in the Mood-CreativityLink: Towards a Dual Pathway to Creativity Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–56.
Kamoche, K. and Pina e Cunha, M. (2001) Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innova-tion. Organization Studies, 22, 733–64.
Kelly, R. and Leggo, C. (2008) Creative Expression, Creative Education: Creativity as Primary Rationale forEducation. Detselig Enterprises, Calgary.
Mueller, J.S., Melwani, S. and Goncalo, A. (2012) The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But RejectCreative Ideas. Psychological Science January, 23, 13–17.
Salter, C. (2008) Marissa Mayer’s 9 principles of innovation. Fast Company [WWW document]. URL http://www.fastcompany.com/article/marissa-mayer039s-9-principles-innovation
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffen, R.W. (1993) Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.Academy of Management Journal, 18, 293–321.
102 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 22 Number 1 2013© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd