2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing 164
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT Volume 15 Number 22006
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00383.x The Psychology of
Novelty-Seeking, Creativity and Innovation: Neurocognitive Aspects
Within a Work-Psychological Perspective Tanja Sophie Schweizer
Curiosity is, in great and generous minds, the rst passion and the
last. Samuel Johnson, 1751
Whyaresomepeopleconstantlyonthemovetowardssomethingnew,whileothersfeelcomfortablewithwhatthereis?Whatmotivatesustoseekforthenew?Whathelpsusinnding
it? What leads us to transform what we nd into a product that is
visible to others andexpose us to their judgement? Research in
psychology holds fascinating insights concerningthe above
questions. Surprisingly, neurocognitive and neuropsychological
insights that couldlead to a better understanding of the processes
of novelty-seeking and novelty-nding, havereceived little attention
in the creativity and innovation literature. Especially for those
work-inginprofessionswherethegenerationofthenewisthecorebusiness,itwouldbehighlyrelevant
to know more about those biological parameters of novelty
generation and especiallyhow they make human beings behave in
professional environments. Such knowledge can
notonlyimprovehumanresourcemanagementincreativeworksettings,butalsohelpcreativeprofessionalstobetterunderstandandmanagethemselves.TheNoveltyGenerationModel(NGM)
introduced in this article offers a new perspective.
keyfeatureofndingsomethingnewandbeingcreativeistheabilitytothinkinwaysthatdifferfromestablishedlinesofthought,
for instance by associating
previouslyunrelatedelementswitheachother.Fromaneuropsychologicalpointofview,highlynovelty-seeking
individuals and above-averagenovelty-nders can be identied by
particularsetsofneurocognitivetraitsandstylesofthinking that also
require specic work
condi-tions.Inthisarticle,neurocognitiveandneu-ropsychologicalndingsthathaveremainedunused
in the creativity and innovation
litera-turearegivenaplacenexttothepersonalityandsocialpsychologicalinsightsthatarealready
established. Based hereupon,
novelty-seeking,creativityandinnovativeperfor-mance are proposed as
key components of
thenoveltygenerationprocessinanewmodel:theNoveltyGenerationModel(NGM).Spe-cicmotivationalstates,neurocognitiveandpersonalitytraitsaswellassocialenviron-mentsaffectthethreerelatedcomponentsofA
novelty-seeking,creativityandinnovativeperformance.Distinguishingbetweenthesecomponents
with their different inputs allowsresearchers and practitioners to
identify moreaccurately the critical switches where dysfunc-tions
may occurin theprocessofgeneratinga novelty,dysfunctions thatmay
notonly beofpsychological,butalsoeconomicconse-quence. Awareness of
these potential dysfunc-tionscanbringaboutfarmorene-grainedand
adequate measures of support for each ofthese three processes in
creative work
settings.Thearticleconcludeswithpracticalappli-cationsthatillustratethevalueoftheNGManditsrelatedknowledgeinprofessionalenvironments.
Neurocognitive Aspects of the Novelty Generation Process
Withinthegenetic,neurocognitiveandneu-ropsychologicalresearcheldsthereareaPSYCHOLOGY
OF NOVELTY-SEEKING, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 165 2006 The
AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Volume 15
Number 22006 numberofpotentialstartingpointsforopen-ing up this
body of knowledge for researchersand practitioners interested in a
better under-standingofthenoveltygenerationprocess.First of all, it
has been discovered that novelty-seeking behaviour is related to
individual differ-encesinspecicneurotransmitteractivityinthe brain.
It has been argued that the novelty-seeking personality is
modulated by the
trans-missionoftheneurotransmitterdopamine(Cloninger,1994).Specicgenesdeterminingthis
transmission (DRD4, DRD2-A2,
SLC6A3-9)havebeenlabellednovelty-seekinggenes(Benjaminet
al.,1996;Ebsteinet al.,1996;Lerman,et
al.,1999;Prolo&Licinio,2002).Highlynovelty-seekingindividualsareatahigherriskoffallingpreytoparticularpat-ternsofpsychologicaldysfunctioning,mostnotably
attention decits and addictive behav-iours(Cloningeret
al.,1994)thatmayalsoinuencetheirsocialinteractionpatternsinprofessionalenvironments.Thelinkbetweenanindividualsnovelty-seekingpersonalityandhis/hercreativitycruciallydependsonthe
degree to which an individual is a
novelty-seeker,mainlyrelatedtotheindividualsdopaminelevels,andrequiresthematchingforms
of support by those who seek to managetheir creative process
(Schweizer, 2004).Being a creative genius has been argued toemerge
from congurations of multiple
genesallinteractingwitheachother(Lykken,McGue&Tellegen,1992).Creativitycanbeseenasaparticularkindofresponsestyle(MacKinnon,1962)andactivitiesofproblem-seeking,problem-ndingandproblem-solving(Getzels&Csikszentmihaly,1975;Kasperson,
1978). Research on creative cogni-tion can best identify
traditional areas in
cog-nitivepsychologyandcognitivesciencethatcould be explored in a
more creative way, suchas mental imagery, concept formation,
catego-rization, memory retrieval, analogical
reason-ing,andproblem-solving(Finke,Ward&Smith, 1992, p. 189).
In order to nd
somethingnew,focusedattentionisnecessary,butalsothedefocusingofattention:creativethinkinginvolvesintuitiveleaps,whicharefacilitatedby
statesofunfocused relaxation,low
levelsofcorticalandfrontal-lobeactivationandmorerightthanlefthemisphereactivation(Martindale,1999).Also,associativecapabili-ties(Mednick,1962),especiallybetweenremotelyassociateditems,havelongbeenidentied
as a key cognitive marker of creativ-ity. Latent inhibition (LI) is
another key to cre-ative cognition: low latent inhibition,
referringtoatendencytohaveputsimplymanythingsonyourmindatthesametime,islinkedwithhighercreativeachievement(Carson,Peterson&Higgins,2003).LowLIindividualscontinuouslyexperienceahighernumberofstimulisimultaneouslybecausetheyignorelessthanthosewithaverageorhighLIscores.Thismayalsorelatedtotheconceptoflateralthinkingsuggestedasanaspectofcreativity,thatis,seeingthingsbroadlyandfromvariousperspectives(DeBono,
1992).Neurocognitivecharacteristicsofcreativeprocessesarehighlyunder-researchedbutgraduallygaininggroundinbrainresearch(Schweizeret
al.,2006).Understandingsuchneurocognitive parameters in the
creative pro-cessmeanslearningmoreaboutwhypeoplebehave the way they
behave and how one canbest deal with them when it comes to
dysfunc-tionalbehavioursintheworkenvironment.The application of
such knowledge to
humanresourcemanagementisanewstreamofcreativityresearchatthebordersoftheorganizational
sciences, neuropsychology
andcognitiveneuroscience.Crossingtheseinter-disciplinary borders
forms a major challenge. Personality and Social Psychological Views
on Creativity and Innovation
Howcantheabovetypeofknowledgebelinkedtopersonalitypsychologyandsocialpsychological
insights that have a more
estab-lishedplaceinthecreativityliterature?Per-sonalitytraitsthatarewidelyacceptedassupportingcreativityare,forinstance,judge-mental
autonomy, self-condence,
risk-taking,non-conformity,independenceandacriticalattitudetowardsnorms(Amabile,1983a;Eysenck,1993;Feist,1998;Kasof,1995;MacKinnon,1965).Butthereisalsosomeresearch
in the personality literature related tonovelty and curiosity that
comes closer to
theneurocognitivetendenciesdiscussedabove.Forinstance,Berlyneinthe1960sdistin-guished
various types of novelty and
differentformsofexploratorybehaviour,aswellas diversivecuriosity
,whichincludestheseekingofnoveltyorcomplexitydrivenbyastateofboredom,and
epistemiccuriosity ,denedasdriven by the need to resolve
uncertainty con-cerning perceptual or symbolic
representation(Berlyne,1960).Inthe1970s,Pearsondevel-oped his
so-called novelty-experiencing scales(NES)aroundtheconstruct
tendencytowardsnovelty as a behaviour of approaching
noveltycontrarytoavoidingnovelty(Pearson,1970).Inthe1990saconceptcallednovelty-seekingis
included in the Temperament and CharacterInventory(TCI),where
novelty-seeking isdenedasatemperamentfactorthatisviewed
asaheritablebiasin
theactivationorinitiationofbehaviorsuchasfrequent166 CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006
Blackwell Publishing Volume 15 Number 22006
exploratoryactivityinresponsetonoveltywhichbelongstoautomatic,pre-conceptualresponsestoperceptualstimulipresumablyreectingheritablebiasesininformationpro-cessing
(Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck,
1993,p.977).Similar,andrelatedtoCloningersnovelty-seeking scale,
are Zuckermans
sensa-tion-seekingscale(Zuckerman&Cloninger,1996) and the
Openness to Experience dimen-sion in Costa and McCraes Five Factor
Model(Costa&McCrae,1992).WithinZuckermans sensationseeking
traittwodimensionsareofparticularinterest: experienceseeking
(ES),referringtotheseekingofnovelsensationsand experiences through
the mind and
senses,asinarousingmusic,art,andtravel,andthroughsocialnonconformity,asinassocia-tionwithgroupsonthefringesofconven-tionalsociety(e.g.artists)and
boredomsusceptibility (BS) , which represents an
intoler-anceforrepetitiveexperienceofanykind,includingroutinework,andboringpeople(Zuckerman,
1994, pp. 2732). In the
NEO-PI-R(ameasureofCostaandMcCraesve-factormodelofpersonality)individualsscor-ing
high on the openness to experience factorhave been assigned
personality facets such
ascurious,creative,originalandimaginative(Costa & McCrae,
1992). Items included in
thisopennessdimensionarevaluesintellectualmatters, rebellious,
non-conforming
versusthenon-opennessendofthecontinuumincludingsex-rolestereotypedbehaviour,favoursconservativevalues,uncomfortablewithcomplexities,judgesinconventionalterms(p.657).Opennesshasbeen
found
toberelatedtotraitcreativity(McCrae,1987),creativepersonality(Feist,1999),creativeachievement(King,Walker&Broyles,1996)andculturalinnovation(McCrae,1996).
Alsosimilartonoveltyseekingistheconstructneedforcognition(NC)(Cacioppo&Petty,1982).Individualsscoring
high on theneedforcognitionnaturallytendtoseek,acquire,think
about,and reectback on
informationtomakesenseofstimuli,relationships,andevents in their
world whereas those
scoringlowonneedforcognitionaremorelikelytorelyonothers(e.g.celebritiesandexperts),cognitive
heuristics, or social comparison pro-cesses (Cacioppo et al., 1996,
p.
198).Fromthepoolofsocialpsychologicaltheo-ries,socialinuence,socialcomparisonandsocialjudgementresearchprovidegoodtoolsfor
an in-depth approach to the social
aspectsofthenoveltygenerationprocess.Firstofall,novelty-seekingandcreativeactivitiescanbeinuenced
by the social environment in
whichtheytakeplace.Individualscanbesociallyinuencedbycuesperceivedintheenviron-ment
that either support (so-called
promotioncues)orinterfere(so-calledpreventioncues)withanindividualslikelihoodtobecreative(Friedman
& Frster, 2000, 2001). Parents
withhighereducationalstatusmayactaspromot-ers by providing
environmental contributionsto their childs intellectual ability and
also mayencourageexploratory,sociallystimulatingbehaviors (Raine et
al., 2002). Exposure to
cre-ativerole-modelssupportscreativeindividu-alsintheirdevelopment(Bandura,1977;Simonton,
1975). Social comparison is one wayfor an individual to nd his or
her way in thecreative process. However, it is not only
indi-vidualswhocomparethemselvestoothers,butalsothosewhoseetheproductsoftheircreativeprocesscomparethemtoothers.Sosecond,
social comparison and judgement
pro-cessesarealsokeyforbeingattributedthelabel creative. Marcel
Duchamppresenteda urinal to the world and it became a
famousartwork,becausetheartworldatsomepointrecognizedthenoveltyinitspresentation.Individualscandisplaynovelty-seekingandcreative
behaviour, but only the judgement
byothersmaylabeltheresultsfromthisbehav-iourasnew,thatis:innovative.Itisalong-established
idea in the psychological
literaturethatthejudgementofknowledgeableotherssuch as
experts,peersorsupervisorsarekeyinassessingthevalueofanindividualscon-tribution(Getzels&Csikszentmihaly,1975;MacKinnon,
1962). How such judgement
pro-cessesaremanagedinrealdecision-makingprocessesinthecreativeindustrieshasbeenexplored,
for instance in the context of
Holly-woodpitchmeetings:heredecision-makersjudgedthecreativepotentialofapplicantsbymatching
individuals with creative and uncre-ative prototypes. How the
applicants
matchedwiththedecision-makersthemselvesalsoplayedanimportantrole(Elsbach&Kramer,2003).Clearly,aninnovationisnotsomethingnew,butmoreappropriatelyreferredtoassomethingthatis
judgedasnew ,thusalabelresultingfromasocialcomparisonandjudg-ment
process a label that can disappear
fromtheproductagain,forinstanceifitentersanotherenvironmentinwhichsocialjudgesdo
not consider this product as new. What
roledoneurocognitiveaspectshaveinthissocialjudgmentprocess?Whethersuchjudgementsareintrinsicallymotivatedinthesensethatjudgesdoreallyperceivenovelstimuliinaproductorwhetheritisextrinsicallymoti-vatedbythesocialdesirabilityorobligationfelt
by judges to declare a product an innova-tion or non-innovation are
two very differentsituations. Afterall,thisprocessalsorequiresthe
ability to perceive novelty and
distinguishitfromnon-novelty,anabilitythatrequiresPSYCHOLOGY OF
NOVELTY-SEEKING, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 167 2006 The
AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Volume 15
Number 22006 similarneurocognitivemarkersasdiscussed,but this time
on the side of those who pass thejudgement about a potentially
novel product. Introducing the Novelty Generation Model (NGM) on
Novelty-Seeking, Creativity and Innovative Performance People can
seek for novelties for a whole
life-timebutmaynevercometondsomethingthatisnewtotheworld.Equally,peoplecanengage
in productive activities, but only
rarelycreateareallynewproduct.Thesubtledif-ferencebetweenproducingandproducingsomethingnovelremainsoneofthetrickiestmoments
in understanding the concept of cre-ativity. Various types of
creative
contributionshavebeendiscussed,andsurprisinglyalsoreplicationhasbeenincludedasatypeofcreativitythatreferstotheeffortofkeepingsomething
as it is (Sternberg & Ben-Zeev,
2001,pp.290291;Sternberg,Kaufman&Pretz,2004).Ofcourse,replicationisalsoanactofproducingsomething,butonemaywonderwhetheritreally
deservestobeincluded
asatypeofcreativityafterall,itissimilartoimitation,theabsoluteoppositeofproducingsomethingnovel.Inscienticcontextssuchawide
view of creativity leads to major theoret-ical and methodological
problems. Maybe alsofor this reason, some prefer more narrow
def-initions in which they emphasize that
creativ-ityismarkedbythegenerationofnovelty(Mandler,1995).Inthissense,othertypesofcreativityclassiedbySternbergandcol-leagueswelldeservethelabelcreativity,becausetheymeetthatnoveltycondition:forinstance
redenition (looking at a eld
fromanewpointofview),advanceforwardin-crementation(theattempttomoveaeldbeyond
a point where others are ready to
go),andredirection(theattempttomoveaeldtowards a new and different
direction).Ontwothingswecanprobablyallagreeconsidering the above
literature review. One isthat there are different components that
makeuptheentireprocessofnoveltygenerationand creativity is only one
of them. The
secondisthatitisoftennotmadeclearinthelitera-turetowhichofthedifferentcomponentsofthenoveltygenerationprocessthepointofdiscussionrelates.Forexample:itwasfoundthat
the shyer and lower in self-esteem a childwas, the lower its
creativity (Kemple, David& Wang, 1996). However, the specic
switchesinwhichtheshynessactuallyinterferedintheirresearchwerenotspecied.Thechildmaywellhavebeencreativebutitsshynessmay
have interfered with what follows the cre-ative process, namely the
process of achievinginnovativeperformancethatwouldrequirethe childs
ability to present its creative prod-ucts to the social environment
and obtain rec-ognition for
it.Ifwehadamodelthatdistinguishedcre-ativity from innovative
performance as
differ-entcomponentsofthenoveltygenerationprocess,thoseaboveeffectsofshynesscouldbetterbelocatedandunderstood.Variouscomponentsandphasesofcreativityhavebeen
distinguished in the literature before, forexample,thephaseof
preparation
whenindi-vidualsdirecttheirattentiontoaparticulartopicandgatherinformationwithinthem-selves
and their environment; followed by an incubation
phaseinwhichconsciousworkstops and attention is directed to other
things,while unconsciously the creative process con-tinues; then
the illumination , the moment
whennewinsightsuddenlycomestomind;andlastlythe verication
phase,inwhichlogicalandrationalthoughtcomesinagaintoturnthenewinsightintosomethingapparenttoothers(Wallas,1926).Similarly,itwassug-gested
that creativity can bebestconceptualizedasasyndromeinvolv-ing a
number of elements: (a) the processesunderlying the individuals
capacity to
gen-eratenewideasorunderstandings,(b)thecharacteristicsoftheindividualfacilitatingprocessoperation,(c)thecharacteristicsofthe
individual facilitating the translation
oftheseideasintoaction,(d)Theattributesofthesituationconditioningtheindivid-ualswillingnesstoengageincreativebehavior,
and (e) the attributes of the
situa-tioninuencingevaluationoftheindi-vidualsproductiveefforts(Mumford&Gustafson,
1988, p.
28)Thequestionis:doesthislastelementabouttheevaluationbythesocialenvironmentreally
belong under the header of the creativeprocess as such? Is this not
a factor belongingto the achievement of innovative
performanceratherthancreativity?Thetermcreativitymayhavebeenoverstretchedinrecentdecades.It
solves some theoretical and methodologi-cal problems to model the
novelty generationprocess as a whole and make clear
conceptualdistinctions between the seeking for novelties,followed
by the nding of a novelty and trans-forming it into a product
visible to others, andnallyinnovativeperformance,whichstandsfor the
social recognitionthat the
producerofanoveltycanreceiveinthisworld.Suchamodelwouldforinstanceaccountforscenar-ios
in which a highly novelty-seeking individ- 168 CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006
Blackwell Publishing Volume 15 Number 22006
ualmaycreatecomparativelyfewnovelproducts,ors/hemaycreatenovelproductsbut
still end up with a low innovative
perfor-mancerecord.Whereintheentireprocessofgeneratinganoveltycantheindividualbe-come
stuck?TheNoveltyGenerationModel(NGM)(Figure
1)canhelptogainmoreinsightsonsuchkeyfunctionsanddysfunctionsintheprocessofgeneratingsomethingnew(Sch-weizer,2004).InthisconceptualmodelIpresenttheprocessofnovelty-seekingastherst
component in the onset of the whole nov-elty generation process,
followed by creativityas a second component consisting of two
mainprocesses: novelty-nding and productionofthenovelty
,whichinturnisfollowedbyinnova-tiveperformance,inwhichaproductispre-sentedtoawidersocialenvironment.WithintheNGMsnotionofcreativity,novelty-ndingoccurswhenanindividualhastheneurocognitive
traits that allow him or her
forinstancetocomeupwithunusualcombina-tions,anabilitydetectedbycreativitytestssuchastheRAT(RemoteAssociatesTest)orUnusualusesofobjectstestslikethebricktest.Followingthisprocesscomponent,anindividualmaydecidetotransformnovelinsights/ndingsintoobservableproductsandwemaysaythatsomeonehasbeencre-ative,
which in turn is the necessary
conditionforthefollowingprocesscomponent:anov-elty entering the
process for innovative perfor-mance. This nal component in the
process
ofgeneratinganoveltyinnovativeperfor-mancedependsontheindividualsinterac-tion
with the social environment in which thenoveltyispresented.Here,
co-operativeness ,afactor in the TCI assumes a central role, just
as extraversion and sociability
intheFive-Factor-Modelhelpinpresentingonesproductstoasocialenvironment.Thewillingnessandtheability
to interact with the environment to
getaproductsociallyjudgedandrecognizedasnovel supports the
achievement of innovativeperformance. History teaches the main
differ-ence between creativity and innovative
perfor-mance:thosewiththegreatideashavenotnecessarilyreceivedthesocialrecognitionforit;
often the recognition has been harvested byothers who were able to
convince the environ-mentaboutthoseideas. Andstillothersmaynot have
sought for something novel, but
havefoundsomethingnovelbychanceanddonesomething with it. Or
innovative performancemayhavebeenassignedtoproductsthatarenot novel
at all. These examples are to
empha-size:theprocessofnoveltygenerationisnot Figure 1. The Novelty
Generation Model (NGM)Note.- - - -=extrinsic
motivation_____=intrinsic motivation
CreativityIndividualMotivationIndividualBehaviorIndividualNeurocognitive
&Personality TraitsNovelty-SeekingInnovative
PerformanceCuriosityExcitabilityImpulsivenessEasily
boredDisinhibitionProactivityFlexible vs. RigidLowLIRemote
Associ-atingDefocussedProblem-solvingSelf-confidencePerseveranceSkill/Experience(neurocognitivelyencoded)EgocentrismSelf-confidencePerseverance
AssertivenessProactivityExtraversionCooperativenessMastery
NeedsSocial Influence: Comparison & JudgmentAchievement
NeedsNeed for Cognition Behavior of Others
CreativityIndividualMotivationIndividualBehaviorIndividualNeurocognitive
&Personality
TraitsNovelty-SeekingNovelty-FindingNovelty-ProducingInnovative
PerformanceCuriosityExcitabilityImpulsivenessEasily
boredDisinhibitionProactivityFlexible vs. RigidLowLIRemote
Associ-atingDefocussedProblem-solvingSelf-confidencePerseveranceSkill/Experience(neurocognitivelyencoded)EgocentrismSelf-confidencePerseverance
AssertivenessProactivityExtraversionCooperativenessMastery
NeedsSocial Influence: Comparison & JudgmentAchievement
NeedsNeed for Cognition PSYCHOLOGY OF NOVELTY-SEEKING, CREATIVITY
AND INNOVATION 169 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006
Blackwell Publishing Volume 15 Number 22006 necessarily as linear
as the NGMs
ideal-typi-calframingofthenoveltygenerationprocessdepicts.TheNGMdiffersfromthemostwidelyacceptedmodelssuggestedbyWallas(1926),Amabile
(1983b) and Mumford and Gustafson(1988) in that it clearly treats
creativity as only one componentwithinthewiderprocessofnovelty
generation, and it also pays attention
totheneurocognitive/neuropsychologicaltraitssupportingit.Insuchanapproach,relevantneurocognitive
as well as personality traits canbe clearly related to the
different components.At the same time it becomes possible with
theNGM to elaborate on the motivational inputs toeach of the
different sub-processes by
indicat-ingthedifferentneedsoftheindividualandalso where they may
work as either intrinsic
orextrinsicmotivators.Forexample,theNGMhelpstovisualizetheproblemthatoccurswhenindividualsseekand/orndnoveltieswith
motivations other than those of satisfyingtheir needs for
cognition: extrinsic motivatorsare at work then. This is for
instance the casewhen achievement needs which do functionwell as
intrinsic motivators in achieving inno-vative performance assume
motivating rolesin other components of the novelty
generationprocess. And nally, the critical switches in
thetransitionfromnovelty-seekingtonovelty-ndingandnovelty-producing,andthentoinnovativeperformancebecomeinvestigableonthebasisoftheNGM.Forinstance,theNGMallowsforidentifyingindividualswithextremely
high novelty-seeking scores that canmake them jump from idea to
idea without n-ishing the phases of transforming the ideas
intopresentableproductsanddealingwiththesocialjudgementprocess.Extremelyhighnovelty-seekersareneuropsychologicallyatriskofbeinghighlydistractibleandhavingshortattention
spans.Ithasbeen argued
thatitisnotthehighlyabove-averagenovelty-seekingpersonality,butratherapersonalitymarkedbyslightlyaboveaveragenovelty-seeking
scores that provides the optimal basisfor the novelty generation
process
(Schweizer,2004).Clearly,morein-depthresearchisrequiredtobetterunderstandthenovelty-seekingandnovelty-ndingprocesses,theirneurocognitive
and neuropsychological corre-lates (also encoded in experience and
skills) aswellastheirbehaviouralimplicationsinthecreative work
process. Practical Implications of the NGM for Creative Work
Environments The processes of novelty generation can occurin any
occupational eld, but in some
profes-sionstheyareessential:art,science,advertis-ingorhautecouturearegoodexamplesofeldswherethegenerationofthenewisthecorebusiness.Insuchsettingstheinteractionbetweencreativestaffontheonehandandoperational
staff on the other often becomes
akeymanagementissue.Thiscanalsoincludeinteractions between
departments or
businessunits.R&Ddepartmentsareanexampleofunitstowhichthegenerationofnoveltiesiscentral.Butindepartmentsandprofessionswherenoveltygenerationisnottheessentialtaskcreativityalsoincreasinglyplaysarole.Historically,theoverallshareofnoveltygen-erationprocessesacrossallprofessionswasmuchsmallerthanitisintodaysfastandcompetitiveenvironments,wherethegenera-tionofnewcontents,stylesanddesignshasbecome
an essential ingredient of the survivalof rms.The NGM is meant to
represent the basis
foratoolboxthatcanbeusedbytwoparticulargroupsofprofessionalsinvolvedinthenov-elty
generation process: rst of all, those
whodirectlyoperateincreativeworkenviron-ments;second,thegroupofindividualswhotakemorefacilitativeroles,forinstanceassupportstaffforcreativestaff,orwhoareinvolvedinpersonnelselectionorhumanresource
management in the widest sense.
Therstgroupdirectlyinvolvedinthenoveltygeneration process may nd
the NGM and itsrelated body of knowledge helpful for
analys-ingtheirownnoveltygenerationprocesses,forinstancealongthefollowingsetsofquestions:Wherearemystrengthsandweaknesseswithinthewholeprocessofgeneratinganovelty:
in the seeking of novelties? In nd-ingthem?
Intransformingmyndingsintoproducts?HowamIdoingwhenitcomes to nding
public recognition for
myproducts?CanIgetreallyexcitedaboutthings?DoIgeteasilybored?DoItakepleasureinthinkingaboutthingsinunusualways?CanIstepbackfromaproblemandletitssolution
come up in me in a relaxed
mode?DoIhaveatendencytojumptonewprojectswithoutnishingthem?DoIfeelcondentaboutmyowncreativity?DoIliketopresentmyideasandmyworkinpublic
or do I have a tendency to keep myideas to
myself?Whatmotivatesmetogeneratenovelties?AmIgenuinelyenthusiasticaboutmywork?Howimportantisitformetopro-ducesomethingandseeformyselfthatIcandoit?TowhatdegreeamIconcerned170
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 2006 The AuthorJournal
compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Volume 15 Number 22006
withwhatotherswillthinkaboutit?Howimportant is it for me to get the
public rec-ognition of others for
it?Wherearethelinksinmynoveltygenera-tionprocessesthatcouldbeimproved?Whatkindsoftrainingcouldhelpmetobetter
handle myself in the critical switchesof the process? Do I receive
the social
sup-portIneedforseekingandndingnovel-ties,producingthemandpresentingthemto
others? Can I accept support from othersat all? What are the main
sources of supportI draw on? Do I experience a sense of well-being
in my work environment?On the other hand, people who are
indirectlyinvolved in the novelty generation process, forinstance
those who manage creative staff,
mayalsobenetfromtheNGManditsrelatedknowledge.Mostimportantly,theycansup-portthosewhoaredirectlyinvolvedinthenovelty
generation process by creating
aware-nessofdysfunctionalswitchesintheirworkprocess and develop
adequate support
strate-gieswithandforthem.InordertofurtherillustratethemanagerialvalueoftheNGM,some
practical examples will be offered in
thefollowing.Someoftheseexamplesalsoindi-catethedirectbenetofneurocognitiveandneuropsychologicalknowledgewithincre-ative
work scenarios. Creativestaffselection.
Humanresourcemanagersstillhavearatherlimitedsetofcriteriaforthedecision-makingprocessconcerning
the selection of new staff for cre-ative positions. In particular,
how to
deter-minethespecicrolethatnewemployeesarethettesttotakewithintheentirenovelty
generation process is an importantissue. Screening for the
neurocognitive
andpersonalitymarkersthatsupportworkinthedifferentcomponentsoftheNGMcanfacilitate
the decision-making process. Trainingcreativestaff.
Forexistingstaffanidenticationoftheindividualspersonal-ity and
neurocognitive strengths as well
asdecitsaffectingthenoveltygenerationprocesswouldbeaworthwhileHRMpolicy.
Managingaddictivebehavioursinworkplaces. This issue is currently
rising in importance,for instance in the context of
internationallydiffusingnon-smokingpoliciesinofcespaces.Fromaneuropharmacologicalper-spective
the physical need for nicotine
dur-ingthenoveltygenerationprocesscanbeexplained by its
facilitative effect in
deliber-ateandfocusedcreativeproblem-solving(similar to caffeine).
On the other side of thespectrum there is the consumption of
alco-hol to achieve a down-regulation of the
pre-frontalcortexandtherelaxationthatsupportsmorespontaneouscreativeprob-lem-solving.
Alcohol abuse is also known
tobewidelyspreadinthecreativeprofes-sions.Accordingtorecentresearchintheneurosciences
and neuropsychology, neuralpathways can be trained in order to
achieveeffectsthatareabletosubstitutefortheeffects of the
above-mentioned drugs.
Stim-ulatingthetraininganduseofthesealter-nativesduringworkhourscouldhelpemployeesmaintaingoodproductivitywithin
a drug-wise restricted environment.
Detectingcompensatorybehaviours.
Weak-nessesinoneofthecomponentsofthenoveltygenerationprocessareoftencom-pensatedbyexcessiveactivityintheothercomponents.Recognizingsuchcompensa-torybehaviourscanhelpre-directingtheemployeesenergiesintohis/herdecientcomponents.
Composition of work teams. The value of com-posing teams in a way
that optimally coversthedifferentcomponentsofthenoveltygeneration
process can become
particularlyobviousincriticalmomentsofthenoveltygeneration process.
A good example here isthe case of a research team confronted
withcompletelyunexpectedresearchresultsshortlybeforeadeadline.Whereasneu-rocognitively
more rigid team members
canprovidegoodstructuretotheoverallpro-cess, they often respond
less constructivelyin drastically changed situations and
underextremetime-pressure.Incontrast,teammemberswithmoreexiblecognitivestyles
of thinking may be more able to
shiftbetweendifferentcognitivesets,whichmakesthemmorelikelytorespondinaconstructivewaytothechangedsituation,seeking
out new opportunities and
therebyrealizingcreativepotentialinsuchdisrup-tivesituations.Joinedinateam,differentsets
of capabilities further the novelty gen-eration process at
different points in time. Handling employees stress, fatigue and
absencerecords.
Jobdissatisfaction,stressorabove-averageabsencerecordsamongcreativestaff
can be symptoms of deeper-lying
dis-sociationswithinthenoveltygenerationprocess.Examplesare:extremelynovelty-seekingindividualswhomayexperiencestrong
limitations in their working
environ-mentwastingtheirnovelty-seekingandcreative energy; vice
versa, individuals
withaneurocognitiveset-upthatislesssup-portivefornovelty-seekingandnovelty-ndingactivitiesoftendrawmainlyonextrinsic
motivations such as social achieve-ment. In professions in which
creative out-PSYCHOLOGY OF NOVELTY-SEEKING, CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION 171 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell
Publishing Volume 15 Number 22006
putsarepartofthejobdenitionthiscancauseexcessiveworkpressuretotheindi-vidual.
The identication and dissolution
ofsuchdistortionsintheworkingprocessformanimportantpartofmanagingthewell-being
and productivity of employees.These were only a few practical
examples indi-catingstartingpointsforamanagerialappli-cation of the
NGM and the body of knowledgeit represents. The examples also
illustrate thatthe psychosocial chain of novelty-seeking,
cre-ativity and innovative performance is
exibletosomedegree,butalsofragile.Thesocialinabilitytomanagetheneedsofpotentialnoveltygeneratorscomeswithhighcostsforallthoseinvolved.Whatismore,inawiderperspective,inestimablesocietalcostsoccurwhereinvestmentsdisappearininnovationprocessesthatarenotsufcientlyfedbynovelty-seeking,ndingandproducing,butbyaself-sustainingnetworkofsocialjudgesacknowledgingtheproductionofanoveltyeven
where there is none. A society as a
wholeisservedbestifoccupationalandorganiza-tionaldecisionsinnovelty-generatingprofes-sions
are informed by an in-depth
knowledgeofthepsychologicalfactorsunderlyingthegeneration of the
new. The above examples
arealsomeanttodrawattentiontotheneedfortheory-buildingandempiricaltestingcon-cerningthecriticalswitchesofthenoveltygenerationprocessdiscussedinthisarticle.Lastly,
it became obvious that the elaborationof the practical implications
of
neurocognitiveandneuropsychologicalinsightsforboth,managerialuseontheonehandandself-knowledge
of the creative staff themselves onthe other, is still in its
infancy and would cer-tainly deserve more attention in creativity
andinnovation research. Hopefully this article hasopened up this
debate and provides impulsesfor future research into these
particular work-psychological issues. Notably, these issues
alsoholdthekeystounderstandingtheuniquepleasure that can be
experienced during suchcreative research work. References Amabile,
T.M. (1983a) The social psychology of creativ-ity .
Springer-Verlag, New York.Amabile, T.M. (1983b) The social
psychology of cre-ativity:Acomponentialconceptualization. Jour-nal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 45, 35776.Bandura,A.(1977)
Sociallearningtheory .Prentice,Englewood
Cliffs.Benjamin,J.,Li,L.,Patterson,C.,Greenberg,B.D.,Murphy,D.L.andHamer,D.H.(1996)PopulationandfamilialassociationbetweentheD4dopaminereceptorgeneandmeasuresofNoveltySeeking.
NatureGenetics ,12(3),814.Berlyne,D.E.(1960)
Conict,arousal,andcuriosity .McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.Cacioppo,J.T.andPetty,R.E.(1982)Theneedforcognition. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy , 42,
11631.Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,Feinstein,J.A.,Blair,W.andJarvis,G.(1996)Dispositionaldifferencesincognitivemotivation:Thelifeandtimesofindi-viduals
varying in need for cognition. Psycholog-ical Bulletin , 119,
197253.Carson,S.H.,Peterson,J.B.andHiggins,D.M.(2003)DecreasedLatentInhibitionisassociatedwithincreasedcreativeachievementinhigh-functioning
individuals. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology , 85(3),
499506.Cloninger,C.R.(1994)Temperamentandper-sonality.
CurrentOpinioninNeurobiology
,4,26673.Cloninger,C.R.,Przybeck,T.R.,Svrakic,D.M.andWetzel,R.D.(1994)
TemperamentandCharacterInventory:AGuidetoItsDevelopmentandUse
.:Center for Psychobiology of Personality,
Depart-mentofPsychiatry,WashingtonUniversitySt.,Missouri.Cloninger,C.R.,Svrakic,D.M.andPrzybeck,T.R.(1993)
A psychobiological model of temperamentandcharacter.
ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry ,1993(50), 97590.Costa, P.T. and
McCrae, R.R. (1992) Four ways vefactors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differ-ences , 13(6), 65365.DeBono,K.G.(1992)
Seriouscreativity:Usingthepoweroflateralthinkingtocreatenewideas
.HarperCollins, New York.Ebstein, R.P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., et
al. (1996)DopamineD4receptor(D4DR)exonIIIpoly-morphism associated
with the personality trait ofNovelty Seeking. Nature Genetics ,
12(3), 7880.Elsbach,K.D.andKramer,R.M.(2003)Assessingcreativity in
Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidencefor a dual-process model of
creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal , 46(3),
283301.Eysenck,H.J.(1993)Creativityandpersonality:Atheoreticalperspective.
PsychologicalInquiry
,4,14778.Feist,G.J.(1998)Ameta-analysisofpersonalityinscienticandartisticcreativity.
PersonalityandSocial Psychology Review , 2,
290309.Feist,G.J.(1999)Theinuenceofpersonalityonartisticandscienticcreativity.InR.J.Sternberg(ed.),
HandbookofCreativity .CambridgeUniver-sity Press, Cambridge.Finke,
R.A., Ward, T.B. and Smith, S.M. (1992)
Cre-ativeCognition.Theory,Research,andApplications .MIT Press,
Cambridge MA.Getzels, J.W. and Csikszentmihaly, M. (1975)
Fromproblemsolvingtoproblemnding.InTaylor,I.A. and Getzels, J.W.
(eds), Perspectives in Creativ-ity . Aldine, Chicago pp.
90116.Kasof,J.(1995)Socialdeterminantsofcreativity:Status
expectations and the evaluation of originalproducts.
AdvancesinGroupProcesses ,12,167220.Kasperson, C.J. (1978)
Psychology of the scientists:XXXVII. Scientic creativity:
Arelationship with172 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 2006 The
AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Volume 15
Number 22006 informationchannels. PsychologicalReports
,42,6914.Kemple,K.M.,David,G.M.andWang,Y.(1996)Preschoolers
creativity, shyness, and self-esteem. Creativity Research Journal ,
9, 31726.King, L., Walker, L. and Broyles, S. (1996)
Creativityandtheve-factormodel. JournalofResearchinPersonality ,
30, 189203.Lerman,C.,Audrain,J.,MaIn,D., et al .(1999)Evi-dence
SuggestIng the role of specic genetic fac-tors In cigarette
smoking. Health Psychology ,
18(1).Lykken,D.T.,McGue,M.andTellegen,A.(1992)Genetic traits that
may not run in families. Amer-ican Psychologist , 47(12),
156577.MacKinnon,D.W.(1962)Thenatureandnurtureofcreativetalent.
AmericanPsychologist
,17,48495.MacKinnon,D.W.(1965)Personalityandthereal-izationofcreativepotential.
AmericanPsycholo-gist , 20,
27381.Mandler,G.(1995)Originsandconsequencesofnovelty.InSmith,S.M.,Ward,T.B.andFinke,R.A.(eds),
Thecreativecognitionapproach .MITPress, Cambridge, MA.Martindale,
C. (1999) Biological Bases of Creativity.InSternberg,R.J.(ed.),
HandbookofCreativity .Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp.
13752.McCrae, R.R. (1987) Creativity, divergent thinking,and
openness to experience. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology
, 52,
125863.McCrae,R.R.(1996)Socialconsequencesofexpe-rientialopenness.
PsychologicalBulletin
,120(3),32337.Mednick,S.A.(1962)Theassociativebasisofthecreativeprocess.
PsychologicalReview ,69,22032.Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B.
(1988) Creativ-ity syndrome: Integration, application, and
inno-vation. Psychological Bulletin , 103,
2743.Pearson,P.H.(1970)Relationshipsbetweenglobalandspeciedmeasuresofnovelty-seeking.
Jour-nalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology
,34,199204.Prolo,P.andLicinio,J.(2002)DRD4andnoveltyseeking.InBenjamin,J.,Ebstein,R.P.Belmaker,R.H.(eds),
Moleculargeneticsandthehumanpersonality
.AmericanPsychiatryPublishing,Washington,
DC.Raine,A.,Reynolds,C.,Venables,P.H.andMed-nick,S.A.(2002)Stimulationseekingandintelli-gence:Aprospectivelongitudinalstudy.
Journalof Personality and Social Psychology , 82(4),
66374.Schweizer,T.S.(2004)
AnIndividualPsychologyofNovelty-Seeking,CreativityandInnovation
.ERIMPh.D. Series, Nr.
48.Schweizer,T.S.,Deijen,J.B.,Heslenfeld,D.,Nieu-wenhuis,S.andTalsma,D.(2006)Functionalmagneticresonanceimagingofbrainactivityduring
rigid versus creative thought processes
inobsessive-compulsivepatients.
PaperpresentedattheCognitiveNeuroscienceSocietyConference,SanFrancisco,
CA, USA .Simonton, D.K. (1975) Sociocultural context of
indi-vidualcreativity. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology ,
32, 111933.Sternberg, R.J. and Ben-Zeev, T. (2001) Complex
Cog-nition . Oxford University Press, New York.Sternberg, R.J.,
Kaufman, J.C. and Pretz, J.E.
(2004)Apropulsionmodelofcreativeleadership. Cre-ativity and
Innovation Management , 13(3), 14553.Wallas, G. (1926) The art of
thought . Jonathan Cape,London.Zuckerman, M. (1994) Behavioral
expressions and bio-socialexpressionsofsensationseeking
.CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.Zuckerman,M.andCloninger,C.R.(1996)Rela-tionshipsbetweenCloningers,Zuckermans,and
Eysencks dimensions of personality. Person-ality and Individual
Differences , 21, 2835.TanjaSophieSchweizer([email protected])
works as an assistant professor
intheClinicalNeuropsychologyDepartmentof the Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam in TheNetherlands.Herresearchinterestscoverthe
neurocognitive aspects of creative activ-ityalsorelating
toherearlierresearch attheRotterdamSchoolofManagementonthe
humanresource management
aspectsofcreativity.HerspecializationisbrainresearchusingFunctionalMagneticResonanceImaging(fMRI)duringcreativetasks.
The ndings of her
brainresearcharecombinedwithwork-psychologicalapplications.
