Handbook of Organizational Creativity || Creativity in Organizations

87

C H A P T E R

Handbook of Organizational Creativity.DOI: © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.201210.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00005-7

Creativity in Organizations: Facilitators and Inhibitors

Eunice M.L. Soriano de AlencarCatholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil

Creativity is a key resource for individuals, organizations and societies. It is expressed in several ways in services, work processes, products, in science, technology and cultural accomplishments. It enables the individual to take greater benefit from opportunities, to respond in a more productive way to challenges and difficulties in his/her personal and professional life, as well as to cope better with unexpected situations. This advantage was observed, for example, among US Air Force personnel who had survived extremely diffi-cult conditions during World War II. One common trait among the successful survivors was their creative and imaginative energy for continued adaptation (Robinson & Stern, 1997). The urge to create is also a healthy part of the human being, and creative activity is usu-ally accompanied by feelings of satisfaction and pleasure, which are fundamental elements of emotional welfare and mental health (Alencar, 2007; Csikszentmihályi, 1997; Pannells & Claxton, 2008; Runco, 2004).

At the level of the organization, creativity is an essential factor for innovation and con-sequent organizational success. It has been considered a critical element for the survival of many companies, in view of the challenges generated by globalization, growing competi-tion and accelerated rhythm of change. These factors have driven organizations to remain in a continuous process of innovation, which requires better use of available resources, espe-cially the creativity of their human resources. In this sense, Prabhu, Sutton and Sauser (2008) state that:

“In today’s competitive world, the only thing that is constant is change. A product that may be a huge success today could be extinct tomorrow. In the backdrop of such fierce competition, new ideas and new products have become a necessity, rather than a luxury. To be competitive in the global market, organiza-tions must develop creative and high quality products and services.” (pp. 62–63)

Regarding the concerns of the larger society, the future prosperity of countries will depend increasingly on their innovative capacity, in other words, on their ability to

5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00005-7

A. INTRODUCTION

5. CREATIvITy In ORgAnIzATIOns: FACIlITATORs And InHIbITORs88

transform ideas into new products and services, to develop new technologies and produc-tion forms, to introduce products and services in new markets and still, in a global context, to face the countless challenges of the planet in the areas of health, education and work (Smith-Bingham, 2006). It is for this reason that governments include creativity as a political priority, aware of the need to promote its fomentation in different levels of formal educa-tion, industries and in other types of organizations. It was the recognition of its importance that led the European Commission to declare 2009 as the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (Gomes & Almeida, 2009).

The main objective of this chapter is to describe different factors that help creativity to bloom in the work environment. Some of these factors refer to the employees, others to the organizations, and still others to the wider society in which individuals and organizations are embedded. Personal attributes that are associated with creativity and that may influence the individual’s behavior in the workplace will be briefly outlined, as well as elements of the organizational environments that may act as incentive or obstruction to the expression of individual and work teams’ creativity. In addition, some conceptual issues will also be discussed. Regarding the central topic of this chapter, it is, however, necessary to highlight that, although creativity has systematically been investigated in psychology for several dec-ades, creativity in organizations is a relatively new area of research in the field of organiza-tional behavior (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). It presents a lot of uncovered subjects, which require different levels of analysis for their complete understanding. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to map out the whole constellation of elements that exert an influence on creativ-ity in an organizational setting, due to their diversity and complexity and their multiple interactions.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

The study of creativity presents an enormous challenge, since it is a complex, dynamic, multifaceted and pluridetermined phenomenon. Thus the difficulty in reaching a precise definition, and the reason for the countless definitions already proposed for the term, which prioritize personal characteristics; or the process; or characteristics of the product or the social environment. Some of these are illustrated below:

“Creativity is the ability to produce new ideas which are novel to the idea producers themselves.” (Drabkin, 1996, p. 78)

“Creativity is a process resulting in a product; it is the production of a novel and appropriate response, product, or solution to an open-ended task. The response must be new, but it must also be appropriate to the task to be completed or the problem to be solved. In addition, the task must be open-ended, rather than hav-ing a single, obvious solution.” (Amabile & Mueller, 2008, p. 35)

“Creativity is a novel product that attains some level of social recognition.” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 27)“Creativity is not an attribute of individuals, but of social systems making judgments about individu-

als… The social and cultural conditions, interacting with individual potentialities, brought about the objects and behaviors we call creative.” (Csikszentmihályi, 1994, p. 144)

The concept of creativity is closely related to the concept of innovation. These two words have been used as synonyms by scholars, such as Sawyer (2006), Simonton (2003), Smith (2003) and Shavinina and Seeratan (2003). On the other hand, other scholars, such as

A. INTRODUCTION

COnCEPTuAl bACkgROund 89

Alencar (1996a), Bruno-Faria (2003), Hill and Amabile (1993), Hunter, Bedell and Mumford (2007), West and Richter (2008), and Van Gundy (1987) discuss the two constructs, making a distinction between them. Alencar emphasizes, for instance, that the term innovation has been more often used at the organizational level, whilst creativity is used to refer to an indi-vidual or team characteristic, being a fundamental factor for innovation, which interests the organization most. Creativity has been conceptualized as the component idea of innovation, an element that might be observed in different stages of the innovation process, while inno-vation would encompass the development, application and outcomes of new ideas. The dif-ference between the two concepts is, however, subtle, departing more in emphasis than in substance (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004).

Several scholars, such as Bruno-Faria (2003), analyzed how creativity in the context of organizations has been defined, signaling common aspects as, for instance, the elements of novelty and value for the organization and emphasizing creativity as originating from indi-viduals and groups in the organization. Buno-Faria synthesized the central ideas of a great number of studies about creativity in the working environment, and proposed the following conceptualization:

“Generation of ideas, processes, products and/or new services to an individual/group or in that context— that produce some valuable contribution for the organization and/or for the welfare of people that work in that context and that possess essential elements to their implementation.” (p.116)

On the other hand, Alvarado (2006), in a paper that presents the conception of a creative organization as a living being, in opposition to the mechanistic conception, includes in her definition of creativity both the individual and the organization, considering it as:

“The process and the quality that allows the human being and organizations to transform reality, and also to transform themselves through the introduction of novelty that proves to be useful, to provide responses to the needs of a changing internal and external context.” (p. 379)

It is noticed that the initial interest of researchers devoted to the investigation of the phe-nomenon was centered in the personal characteristics associated with creativity, such as creative thinking abilities, together with the personality attributes of people that stand out in terms of their creative production. More recently, the environmental context has begun to receive greater attention, as fulfilling the crucial role of the individual’s closest environ-ment. In addition, another focus of interest has been the impact of political, historical and cultural features of society on the modalities of valued and exalted creative expressions, on the opportunities available for the development of creative potential, as well as on the organizational processes that facilitate or obstruct creativity and innovation (Leung, Au & Leung, 2004).

The elements that promote creativity have been addressed in several theories of crea-tivity, such as Sternberg’s (2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996, 1999) Investment Theory of Creativity, Amabile’s (1983, 1996a; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Amabile & Tighe, 1993) Componential Theory of Creativity and Csikszentmihályi’s (1988, 1994, 1999) systems model of creativity. According to Sternberg (2003), for instance, a complete model of cre-ativity includes the environment, and the following personal resources that may facili-tate or hinder its manifestation: intellectual skills, thinking styles, personality, motivation

A. INTRODUCTION


and knowledge. Sternberg also points out that the type of environment that facilitates the expression of creativity also depends on other factors, such as personal attributes, the per-son’s level of creative potential and the area in which creativity is expressed, highlighting that the environment that facilitates creative expression interacts with personal and situa-tional variables in a complex way.

On the other hand, Amabile’s componential theory of creativity includes three basic com-ponents within the individual and one component outside the individual. Domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes and intrinsic task motivation are the individual compo-nents. The first includes several elements related to the level of expertise in a domain, such as talent, knowledge, experiences and technical abilities. The second component includes cognitive styles, the domain of strategies that favor the production of new ideas and person-ality characteristics that are conducive to generating new and useful ideas in any domain. The third component is task motivation, which may be primarily intrinsic or extrinsic. According to Amabile, it is the intrinsic motivation, or else, the motivation to engage in some activity primarily for its own sake, that is conducive to creativity, although informa-tional extrinsic motivation can also be conducive, particularly if it combines with high levels of intrinsic motivation. The fourth component is the work or social environment. It com-prises several factors in the environment that can block creativity or foster it (Amabile, 1983, 1996a; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Amabile & Tighe, 1993).

Csikszentmihályi’s (1994, 1999) systems approach includes, besides the individual, the field and the domain. Several characteristics of the individual, such as motivation, cogni-tive skills, openness to experience, persistence, curiosity, enthusiasm and other personality traits that favor breaking rules as well as the ability to convince people who belong to the field about the value of his/her own ideas, represent traits that may facilitate the occurrence of creativity. The field encompasses all the individuals that act as judges, and who decide whether an idea or product is creative. The participants in the field are those who demand, respond, judge, discourage, recognize and value the ideas and contributions of the “crea-tor”. The domain includes a group of rules and symbolic procedures of an area of knowl-edge, such as mathematics, physics, biology, music etc. In the case of an organization, it comprises practices accepted and implemented, production lines, market segments, among other features. Furthermore, Csikszentmihályi and Sawyer (1995) report the need to shift the focus from the creativity of the individual to its social and organizational components, bearing in mind, that creativity in organizations not only depends on internal elements, but also on other external elements, such as market characteristics and government legislation. Csikszentmihályi (1996) also notices that it is easier to develop people’s creativity by chang-ing the conditions of the environment rather than trying to make them think in a creative way, conceiving creativity both as an individual, as well as a social phenomenon.

The reciprocal influence of the person-environment has been highlighted by Sternberg (2003), Amabile (1996a; Amabile & Miller, 2008) and Csikszentmihályi (1999; Csikszentmihályi & Sawyer, 1995) and other scholars, who underscore the complex and dynamic interactions among social factors, the context and personal characteristics. This emphasizes that creativity does not occur in a vacuum, and cannot be seen as being independent of the environmental context. On the other hand, it does not exist without the individual either. Furthermore, the same environ-ment or situation can have different impacts on different individuals, as the propeller of the crea-tive expression for some, and a contrary effect in others.

A. INTRODUCTION

PERsOnAl CHARACTERIsTICs AssOCIATEd wITH CREATIvITy 91

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH CREATIVITY

Creative achievement in organizations depends not only on elements of the work envi-ronment, but also on the individual, working alone or in teams. If employees present attributes that favor the expression and development of new ideas, this may contribute to the flourishing of creativity in the workplace, particularly if creativity is valued and required in their work activities. The investigation of these attributes has gained impe-tus since the beginning of the second half of last century, after Guilford’s (1950) presiden-tial address to the American Psychological Association. Guilford pointed out the disregard of psychology for the study of creativity, which, by his understanding, deserved greater attention due to its social importance and crucial role for progress. Since then, research on creativity has prospered, together with greater interest in the psychological study of the per-sonal attributes which may contribute to the expression of creativity. Since the early ‘80s, this interest has expanded significantly and the influence of external factors to the individ-ual, present in his/her social environment have begun to receive greater attention, such as collaboration, social support nets, cultural background, the organization climate and cul-tural elements in the expression of creativity.

A vast number of studies have been carried out on the individual characteristics that facilitate creative performance. Personality attributes, cognitive abilities involved in the cre-ative process, creative styles, motivation and expertise are among the variables that have been most examined by the literature on creativity. These will be addressed briefly below.

Personality Attributes

Individuals that present initiative, independence of judgment, flexibility, openness to new ideas, persistence, self-confidence, tolerance to ambiguity, disposition to take risks and to learn from mistakes have greater chances of taking advantage of opportunities to express and develop creative ideas. Several of these attributes were identified in biographical stud-ies of people with outstanding contributions. They were, for instance, observed by Alencar (1998b, 2001a) in a study of a sample of Brazilian scientists recognized for their high creative production, who were interviewed about their personality traits, facilitating and inhibiting factors to their creative achievement, institutional and personal factors that promote greater creative production, as well as their aspirations for the future. To explain their high level of creative expression, these scientists signaled, among other features, their perseverance, com-mitment to work, initiative and independence of thinking and action. Similarly, in a study concerning the facilitating and inhibiting factors to the expression of personal creativity, conducted with a sample of engineering students and engineers (Alencar & Fleith, 2004), the participants mentioned, besides variables outside the individual, such as incentive, free-dom to express ideas, opportunity and time, some personality traits, such as courage, perse-verance and curiosity, considered by them as facilitating factors.

Current research has also examined, instead of the individual personality traits, the crea-tive personality team composition, which is a measure that includes different individual cre-ative personality variables, as well as the combination of these variables. The rationale for the advantage of its use is the recognition of the importance of team-based work systems for organizational effectiveness and creativity/innovation. This personality composition refers

A. INTRODUCTION


to a constellation of variables that might contribute to the creative achievement of the team (Baer, Oldham, Jacobsohn & Hollingshead, 2008; Mathisen, Martinsen & Einarsen, 2008).

The personality traits previously pointed out are only a sample of those that appear repeatedly in the literature on personality attributes associated with creativity (Alencar & Fleith, 2003a; Barron, 1969; Dewett, 2006; Muñoz-Doyague, González-Álvarez, & Nieto, 2008; MacKinnon, 1965, 1975; Soto, 2006; Zenasni, Besançon, & Lubart, 2008). Furthermore, it has also been stated that to be creative in one social setting does not necessarily mean that the same traits will be helpful in another setting (Talbot, 1993), that different personality traits may be needed depending on the stage of the innovation process (Mathisen, Martinsen & Einarsen, 2008), and that great differences exist among creative individuals in their personal-ity attributes (Alencar & Fleith, 2003a; MacKinnon, 1978). Differences among people from different cultures in the extent to which they present traits associated with creativity is also a topic discussed in literature (Kim, 2007; Lubart, 1999; Leung, Au, & Leung, 2004).

Special Cognitive Abilities and Cognitive Style

The cognitive abilities most frequently reported in literature include fluency, flexibility and originality of ideas, complemented with analytical and critical reasoning, besides metaphori-cal and analogical thinking. It is noted that the divergent thinking abilities gained prominence with Guilford’s (1967) publications on the structure of intellect theory. The assessment of these abilities has frequently been used inadequately as a general indicator of an individual’s crea-tivity (Alencar, 1996b; Alencar & Fleith, in press), in spite of Guilford’s position that a constel-lation of multiple abilities characterizes creative thinking. According to him:

“the creative potential is very complex, and at times and in different ways involves abilities outside the divergent-production and the transformation categories, which are most important in that connection.” (Guilford, 1967, pp. 169–170)

The role of other cognitive abilities has been increasingly recognized in creative produc-tion, as has the contribution of convergent thinking (Cropley, 2006).

In addition, Mumford, Baughman and Sager (2003) argued that creative thought also involves the identification of new and viable solutions, and considered creative thought as a form of complex problem solving, asserting that:

“the combination and reorganization of extent knowledge structures may represent the key cognitive process underlying the generation of new ideas.” (p. 24)

These scholars have listed the following cognitive processes as appearing to play a role in creative thought: problem construction or problem definition; information encoding; cat-egory search; category selection; category combination and reorganization; idea evaluation; implementation planning; and monitoring.

The cognitive style refers to how people approach problems and their solutions, includ-ing how they generate new ideas. The perspective is on “how people are creative” or pre-ferred ways of expressing or using one’s creativity (Treffinger, 2003). The best known classification of cognitive styles was proposed by Kirton (1987), author of the theory of adaptation–innovation. It considers that any individual can be located in a continuum that

A. INTRODUCTION

PERsOnAl CHARACTERIsTICs AssOCIATEd wITH CREATIvITy 93

varies from the ability “to do things better” to the ability “to do things in a different way”. Those who present an adaptive style are characterized by precision, efficiency, discipline, attention to norms. On the other hand, the ones that present an innovative style tend to be undisciplined, rule breakers, and in face of a problem, they try to reorganize or restructure it with less predictable responses and a greater level of originality. The cognitive style that is described as innovator is the one that is linked to greater creativity levels. Other classifica-tions of cognitive styles have been proposed by scholars, such as Sternberg (1997; Lubart & Sternberg, 1995) and Wechsler (2006).

Motivational Factors

The role of motivation for creative performance is well documented in literature. There is vast empiric evidence that calls attention to a high level of motivation, especially of intrin-sic nature in creative work (Alencar, 1998b, 2001a, 2006; Amabile, 1996b; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Lewis, 1999). Alencar (1998b), for instance, in a study with scientists notable for their creative production, observed an intense enthusiasm and involvement, typical of highly motivated people. In respect to the characteristics that most contributed to their remarka-ble productivity, they usually reported a passion that moved them in their work, similar to that noticed by Amabile (2001) in a biographical study of John Irving, a prominent North American writer. When questioned, for example, as to the reason why he continued to work ten hours every day, even after having become a successful novelist, the response was the pleasure and love found in devoting to his writing.

However, extrinsic motivation, which characterizes the individual which gets involved in a task due to a reward or external recognition, may also have a positive effect on creative performance. In this sense, Sternberg and Lubart (1995) pointed out that both motivational types—intrinsic and extrinsic—frequently interact, mutually combining to strengthen creativ-ity. These authors mention several empirical studies that point to the mobilizing role of both motivation types for creativity. In one of the studies, developed by Ochse (cited by Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), motivators, which were considered especially relevant for professionals that have given creative contributions in several areas, were investigated. Several factors were reported; some that reflected intrinsic motivation, and others that indicated extrinsic moti-vation as, for instance, the wish to obtain domain on a given problem, to be recognized by peers, to have self-esteem, to reach immortality and to discover an underlying order in things. In a similar way, Amabile (2001) proposed that certain types of extrinsic motivators, which give support to the development of competence and work involvement, complement intrinsic motivation through a process that she denominates motivational synergy.

Expertise

The term ‘expert’ has been used to characterize people whose performance in a domain is consistently superior to the performance of non-experts (Galvão, 1993, 2001). On the other hand, expertise can refer to the capacity, acquired through practice or deliberate individual study, to perform a specific domain task particularly well (Galvão, 2001). Several scholars (Alencar, 2009, Alencar & Galvão, 2007; Amabile, 1996a; Ericsson, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996, 1999; Weisberg, 1999) underscore the importance of expertise in a domain to the

A. INTRODUCTION


production of creative work. It has been pointed out that technical, intellectual and proce-dural knowledge in a specific area helps in the identification and solution of problems of real importance to the area. In relation to knowledge, Sternberg and Lubart discriminate two types: formal and informal, considering both to be important for creativity. The first would be that knowledge of a certain area or of a certain work, which is acquired through books, lectures or any other means of instruction. The informal would be the knowledge acquired when one devotes himself/herself to a certain area, and it is rarely explicitly taught. It is, most of the time, impossible even to be verbalized.

Expertise is a critical element for creative work, since new ideas are not produced in a vacuum. The greater the previous knowledge, the easier it is to acquire new knowledge and to establish links among ideas, which may result in ideas of value, appropriate to the needs of the context. However, it is also argued that experts are in danger of being entrenched in their areas of expertise, operating with the same repertoire of responses, without tak-ing profit from external changes that might improve competencies already crystallized (Sternberg, 1996). This was evident in a study of musicians by Galvão (2000).

The role of expertise for creative production was addressed by scientists that participated in a study developed by Alencar (2001a), regarding factors that promote greater creative produc-tion. Most of them referred to the importance of the domain of the technique and knowledge, in addition to imagination, to have success in creative endeavors. Similarly, the importance of expertise was highlighted by engineering students and engineers who participated in a study, conducted by Alencar and Fleith (2004), on factors that impact creative performance.

THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY

Organizational context variables that may affect the creativity blooming in the work place have been the target of numerous studies. The characteristics of a leader who moti-vates and fosters creativity, elements in groups or teams that may stimulate or inhibit creativity, the organizational climate for creativity, strategies to nurture creativity among companies that are outstanding in their innovative capacity are some topics that have been investigated and discussed (Alencar, 1996a, 1998a; Alencar & Bruno-Faria, 2007; Amabile, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1996; Hill & Amabile, 1993; Hitt, 1975; Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1995; Zhou & Shalley, 2008). In addition, as organiza-tions are built-in within societies, sharing the values and suffering the influences of political, historical and cultural conditions, another focus of attention has been the influence of soci-etal values and cultural practices on the behavior of individuals and groups in their work-place, on the management styles, and the extent to which these features enhance or inhibit creative expression. It has been underscored that national/cultural assumptions, beliefs and customs affect what happens in organizations. For this reason, it is difficult to generalize about creativity in organizations. According to Talbot (1993):

“it depends on whose creativity we mean and in what sort of organization and in which society.” (p. 187)

This section focuses on some organizational factors that facilitate creativity and others that obstruct its expression.

A. INTRODUCTION

THE wORk EnvIROnmEnT FOR CREATIvITy 95

Facilitating Factors

The work environment conditions that have a positive impact on creativity have been discussed extensively by numerous scholars, such as Amabile (1996b, 1999; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Amabile & Sensabaugh, 1989), Alencar (1996a), Van Gundy (1987), West and Farr (1990), Zou and Shalley (2008), among many others. They remind us that creativity, like a delicate flower, needs an ideal atmosphere to flourish (Norins, 1990). Numerous choreog-raphies with features that characterize this atmosphere are presented in the literature, some having a few variables and others being very complex, encompassing a wide repertoire of factors that impact employees’ creative performance. Although numerous variables may impact creative behavior in organizations, elements of the organizational culture and cli-mate are among the most discussed, due to their crucial influence on creativity in the work environment. These two constructs are closely related, and both have been used to describe the organizational context that influences individuals’ behavior in the workplace. They are often treated as if they were synonymous, but differences exist among them. The most criti-cal is the greater level of abstraction at which the culture operates when compared to cli-mate (Tesluk, Farr & Klein, 1997). Organizational culture comprises the system of beliefs, norms, feelings and values shared by its members, which are translated into actions, espe-cially by those that hold a leadership position. Manifestations of culture might be observed in different organizational factors, such as number of hierarchies; pay levels; informal prac-tices; values and rituals; stories, jokes and jargon; and characteristics of the physical envi-ronment (West & Richter, 2008). In discussing organizational culture, Talbot (1993) refers to the shared values (what is important), the shared beliefs (how things work), which inter-act with the organizational structure and control system, resulting in behavioral norms (the ways things are done in the workplace). Talbot also mentions as elements of the culture the basic assumptions on how organization problems should be solved and artifacts, which are the visible manifestations of the other cultural elements, including observable behaviors of employees, besides structures, systems, procedures, rules and characteristics of the physical environment.

On the other hand, the organizational climate refers to the shared perception of the work environment, including its policies, practices and procedures (Schneider, 1975; Tesluk, Farr & Klein, 1997). The description of the organizational climate as the “observed and recurrent pat-terns of behaviors, attitudes and feelings that characterize life in the organization” is offered by Isaksen, Lauer, Ekval and Britz (cited by Kwasniewska & Necka, 2004; Runco, 2007). Individuals from different organizational cultures have different experiences related to crea-tivity. The same happens in respect to climate as perceived by employees. In addition, stud-ies have indicated that variables such as gender, role in the organization (e.g. managers and non-managers), age and academic level influence the perception of the climate (Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1998; Kwasniewska & Necka, 2004).

Organizational culture and the way its leaders express it were considered to be key factors for creativity in the work place by Hitt (1975) and Locke and Kirkpatrick (1995). According to these scholars, creativity needs to be explicitly valued, which requires the leader to share continually with all employees a vision that emphasizes its importance. In addition, a creative culture must be implemented according to this vision, which requires: the selection of creative people; continual training and opportunities to update knowledge

A. INTRODUCTION


and to develop creative skills; the setting of goals to reach creative products; encourage-ment, discussion and sharing of ideas among team members, teams, and all employees; and recognition and reward of creative ideas and products. Similar ideas are presented by Norins (1990) in describing some characteristics of an ideal environment for creativity: cul-tivation of a pro creativity culture; provision of incentives and recognition for creative ideas and work; provisions of the best possible tools for interchanging ideas; and the best possible training.

Numerous studies on the characteristics of organizational environments that promote creativity are available in the literature. Among the most widely known are Amabile’s (1996b, 1999; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Amabile & Sensabaugh, 1989) researches. This scholar has been recognized by a long tradition of contributions on creativity in the organi-zational setting. Amabile and colleagues have identified many features of organizations that promote creativity. They were initially identified through interviews with R & D scientists and were incorporated in a questionnaire—The Work Environment Inventory (Amabile & Griskiewicz, 1989). They refer to:

1. considerable freedom regarding the means available to complete the tasks necessary to reach the goals set,

2. sufficient resources, including facilities and information, as well as time to explore, mature and develop ideas,

3. challenging work, by the accomplishment of tasks that are neither too easy nor have a degree of difficulty perceived as an impediment to success in performing the task, groups/working teams characterized by diversity, with employees that have different reference structures, motivated by the tasks under their responsibility, willing to cooperate and share knowledge, prompt to recognize and incorporate contributions of the other participants,

4. supervisors’ encouragement, with recognition of the employees’ new ideas, efforts and successes, and

5. recognition and support by the top leaders in the organization.

Facilitating factors for creativity in the organizational environment were identified by Bruno-Faria and Alencar (1996; Alencar & Bruno-Faria, 1997), in a study of Brazilian employees from different modalities of organizations, who were interviewed about the characteristics of an organizational environment that foster creativity and those that inhibit it. Content analysis of the responses indicated the following categories as stimulants to creativity:

1. challenges—challenging tasks or missions that require creative ideas,2. freedom and autonomy—freedom to decide how to perform tasks, with autonomy to

take decisions when necessary,3. manager’s support—openness, flexibility, respect for divergent opinions, and

encouragement of new ideas on the part of the manager,4. organizational structure—limited number of hierarchies, flexible norms, power

decentralization,5. organization support—recognition and support of the creative work in the organization;

availability of mechanisms to develop new ideas,

A. INTRODUCTION


6. physical environment—an environment described as agreeable, with adequate illumination, furniture, space, and ventilation,

7. salaries and benefits—adequate remuneration; a policy of benefits and reward system that encourages innovative ideas,

8. technological and material resources—availability of equipment and materials that facilitate the developmental processes of new ideas,

9. training—availability of training to all staff with the purpose of developing their creative potential and facilitating the process of innovation, and

10. work team support—dialogue and reliance among the work group; interpersonal relationships among team members that favor and stimulate new ideas.

Bruno-Faria and Alencar (1996; Alencar & Bruno-Faria, 1997) also requested that the par-ticipants should indicate, besides the characteristics of an organizational environment that promote creativity, those features in their work environment that stimulate the expression of creativity. A comparison of responses to the two questions indicated differences among them. Training, salaries and benefits, for example, were not mentioned when the partici-pants referred to their organizations. The organization structure, freedom and autonomy and the physical environment were also much less frequently mentioned in the participants’ description of their organizations, compared to their responses on the necessary stimulants for creativity in the workplace. These results suggest that the features recognized as impor-tant to creativity blooming were not always perceived to be present in the organizations where the employees actually worked. A work environment with conditions detrimental to creativity was also observed by Alencar (2001b), in a study designed to evaluate the effects of a program for fostering creativity in the workplace. The participants complained about features of their organization taken as not conducive to creativity. The practice of punish-ing mistakes, which prevailed in the organization, a scarcity of opportunities to express new ideas and the lack of manager’s reliance on the employees inhibited creativity. Despite an awareness of the need for creativity and innovation for organizational success, deep rooted tendencies to maintain the status quo prevailed, making it difficult to introduce changes in a direction of promising conditions for creativity.

Van Gundy (1987) also described features of an organizational environment that can play a role in organizational creativity. From a review of research conducted in different work contexts, he identified several factors which facilitate creativity. Some of them converge with those previously pointed out, namely: autonomy, performance reward dependency, risk tak-ing, tolerance of differences, personal commitment, top management support, high respon-sibility for initiating ideas, job security, and a moderate degree of ambiguity about the job environment.

Several instruments have been designed to assess features of the organizational climate suggested as stimulants or inhibitors to creativity. A recent description of available instru-ments with their psychometric characteristics is presented by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004). KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity; Creative Climate Questionnaire, Team Climate Inventory, and Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation were analyzed by these schol-ars, who concluded that only two of them presented acceptable scientific quality and were well documented in peer-reviewed literature. One of the most cited in literature is the Work Environment Inventory, developed by Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989), which was revised

A. INTRODUCTION


several times and is currently named KEYS. It includes the following stimulant scales: organizational encouragement; supervisory encouragement; work group support; sufficient resources; challenging work; and freedom. This instrument also includes obstacles scales which will be reported in the next section. The Creative Climate Questionnaire measures 10 climate dimensions, nine of them hypothesized as representative of a climate conducive to creativity. The promoting factors were named challenge, freedom, idea support, trust/openness, dynamism/liveliness, playfulness/humor, debates, risk taking, and idea time. Leadership, ownership, norms for diversity, continuous development, and consistency are the dimensions measured by the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation, while vision, par-ticipative safety, task orientation and support for innovation are the theoretical dimensions of the Team Climate Inventory. Besides describing these instruments and studies conducted with them, Mathisen and Einarsen present a critique of each questionnaire, suggesting the need for more research to reinforce their psychometric qualities, as well as more studies on the relative importance of different work environmental factors.

In Brazil, an inventory named Indicators of Climate for Creativity was developed by Bruno-Faria (in press; Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1998). This inventory was constructed on the basis of a study of facilitating and inhibiting factors to creativity in the organizational envi-ronment (Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1996) and a review of theory and research on creativity in the organization. The validation study, in a sample of 1,003 employees of a Brazilian state bank, resulted in eight factors with 69 items hypothesized as stimulants to creativity, and in four factors with 38 items hypothesized as obstacles to creativity in the work environ-ment. Each item is answered on a 5-point scale, varying from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5). The factors that represent stimulants to creativity in the work environment were labeled: adequate physical environment; favorable social climate among work colleagues; incentive to new ideas; freedom of action; challenging activities; adequate salaries and ben-efits; actions by managers and the organizations in support of new ideas; and availability of material resources. Cronbach’s alpha varied from 0.68 to 0.88. Examples of items for each factor are: “I have enough space to keep my work material; the climate among colleagues is characterized by trust and mutual respect; my colleagues encourage me to produce new ideas; I feel at ease to act differently from my colleagues; the tasks I realize in my job require the best of myself; my salary is in agreement with the job I do; my boss encourages the employees to examine new ideas and solutions to the organization’s problems. Studies conducted with this inventory indicated that the managers’ and organization’s actions in support of new ideas were the best predictor of teams’ performance (Bruno-Faria, in press). This questionnaire is being revised to eliminate some of its weaknesses and to best adapt it to the current reality of Brazilian organizations.

An analysis of factors that promote creativity in organizations was presented by Runco (2007) based on a meta-analysis conducted by Hunter of 42 previous studies. This analy-sis resulted in identification of the following dimensions: positive peer-group; supervisor; resources; challenges; mission clarity; autonomy; cohesion; intellectual simulation; top man-agement; rewards; flexibility and risk-taking; product emphasis; participation; and organi-zational integration. Furthermore, the most important factors indicated by the meta-analysis were those that characterize a positive interpersonal exchange, intellectual stimulants and challenges. Most of these dimensions are measured by the instruments previously pointed out, that have been designed to assess the organizational environment for creativity. Some

A. INTRODUCTION


of them overlap, for example, with the dimensions of the questionnaire labeled Indicators of Climate for Creativity (Bruno-Faria, in press; Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1998) on elements which are promoters of creativity in the work environment, such as resources and chal-lenges. However, flexibility and risk taking, mission clarity and organizational integration, which are some of the dimensions resulted from the meta-analysis, were not observed by Bruno-Faria and Alencar (1998).

Although the elements previously presented characterize a climate for creativity in the workplace, several variables act as moderators (Runco, 2007; Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007). Runco underscores, for example, that in order to understand the influence of organi-zational variables on different factors, such as work satisfaction, innovation and creativity, it is essential to take into account the moderators or:

“variables that determine how strongly a particular dimension will influence organizational and indi-vidual behavior.” (p. 165)

As examples of individual factors that may moderate the impact of the organizational cli-mate, Runco mentions employee job satisfaction, and even his/her mood. In addition, this scholar underscores that in team work, team factors, such as team size, cohesion and per-sonality of its members, may moderate the impact of the organizational climate on creative achievement.

Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of numerous studies, including articles, conference papers, dissertations and manuscripts, on the relationship between climate perception and creative achievement. These authors examined job, group, organization and environmental variables that may moderate the relationship between climate and creativity in organizations. Stronger relationships between climate and crea-tive achievement were observed, for example, when employees were granted the discre-tion needed to do creative work in contrast to jobs with only moderate levels of discretion allowed; in groups of low and moderate cohesion compared to highly cohesive groups; in organizations with a horizontal structure in opposition to those with a vertical structure; and when the market required the development of an innovative product, in conditions of high turbulence, competitive and high production pressure as opposed to conditions of lit-tle requirement for innovative products by the market, of medium or low turbulence, and of medium or low production pressure.

Characteristics of organizations outstanding for their innovative capacity and the strat-egies implemented by them to nurture creativity in the workplace were described by Ferraz (2002) and Blecher (2005). Ideo, Apple, Google and Brazilian companies, for exam-ple Natura, Nutrimental, Embraco and Embraer, were some of the companies analyzed. Although differences were observed among them in relation to several characteristics pre-viously pointed out, which promote creativity in the organizations, the following common features were reported: a culture that supports creativity; mobilization of teams from differ-ent areas to generate ideas that may generate innovations; cultivation of an atmosphere of freedom, where a feeling of safety to express and test ideas prevailed; as well as the practice of evaluating results and rewarding the team members who were responsible for successful projects. Other common features were the understanding of the market and the consumer, and the practice of “overthrowing walls”, which means extending the processes for the

A. INTRODUCTION


development of new products to suppliers as well. Some differentiated practices of each of the companies analyzed were also underscored. Natura, for example, a company specializ-ing in beauty products, maintains a net of approximately 500,000 female consultants, which generate 200,000 contacts each month. Half of these contacts feed the R & D division with suggestions that may result in product improvement or new products. On the other hand, Google’s engineers have free time one day a week to develop their own products, even those which are not related to the organization’s mission (Blecher, 2005).

Leadership

Among the numerous variables that impact creativity in the organizational setting, lead-ership has been taken as one of the most critical. This variable will be briefly discussed here. As a starting point, it might be underscored that, although leaders may be managers, super-visors or other figures with formal or informal positions in the organization, leadership and management are not always found together. Along these lines, Cyert (1988) states that it is even possible for an organization to be well managed and not well led. Leaders’ influence on the characteristics of an organization, such as culture and reward systems, the leaders’ impact on the behavior of their employees’ creativity and motivation, the influence of lead-ership styles on creativity in the workplace, have all been discussed (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004; Cyert, 1988; Ford, 1995; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; King, 1990; Runco, 2007; Tierney, 2008).

A more detailed analysis of leadership for creativity is offered by Tierney (2008), who pointed out this is a complex behavioral and multidimensional phenomenon. To explain the numerous ways in which a leader may contribute to foment creative action, Tierney pro-posed a matrix that incorporates different levels of leadership (individual, dyad, group and organization), three facets of the leader (traits, behaviors and relations) and three spheres of possible influence in those under his/her leadership (cognition, motivation and capacity).

In respect to the leader’s characteristics based on an extensive literature review, Tierney (2008) points out some traits, such as emotional intelligence, intuition and sensibility regard-ing the diversity of cognitive and problem solving styles of subordinates; the leader’s ability to apprehend the environment, to identify problems and possible consequences of differ-ent solutions proposed by subordinates; besides an innovative cognitive style and motiva-tion to lead others towards creative performance. Regarding behaviors, the socio-emotional and instrumental support, the expression of consideration, empathy and encouragement are some leader’s behaviors that relate to the employees’ creative expression. With respect to relationships, it is acknowledged that leadership is a phenomenon that exists between the leader and the employees. This explains the importance of the quality of the relationship, which must be characterized by support and receptivity towards new ideas, enabling the employees to be flexible, take risks and express exploratory behaviors in their activities.

In addition, Tierney (2008) considers that leaders with certain profiles are more effective with certain types of subordinates in the process of fomenting the creative performance, adopting an interactionist perspective that calls attention to the reciprocal influence between the leader and subordinates. Furthermore, due to the presence of different leaders at several levels of the organization, the fomentation of creativity in the work environment requires that all individuals who occupy a leadership position, independent of the organization hierarchical

A. INTRODUCTION


structure level, be aligned in respect to their value and support of creativity. In support of this position, Tierney points out, for instance, that leaders in lower levels do not operate in iso-lation. Their capacity and motivation for fostering creativity among their subordinates are greatly determined by the higher leaders within the organization, who model and imprint elements of the cultural, structural and organizational process. However, it may also happen that, despite the creative vision of the senior management, who value and reward creativity and innovation, other people in leadership positions do not share these same values, generat-ing a situation that is deleterious to the growth of creativity (Cyert, 1988).

Empirical evidence on the importance of perceived leader’s support for employees’ crea-tivity was offered by Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, and Kramer (2004) in a study that explored the employees’ perceptual and affective reactions to the leader’s behavior. These behaviors were categorized as positive (such as rewarding or giving recognition, or mentoring), nega-tive (such as giving information in an inappropriate way), or neutral/unknown, in cases when it was not possible to determine if the leader’s behaviors were positive or negative. The results obtained in this study suggested that the leader’s behaviors influence the reac-tions of subordinates, which in turn, influence that subordinate’s creative performance. Furthermore, the results also revealed that the leader’s behaviors influence not only the sub-ordinates’ perceptions of the leader, but also the subordinates’ perceptions of themselves, in particular their competence and the value of their work.

Moderating variables which affect the relationship between leadership and innova-tion have been discussed in literature. This issue was examined by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) in a study on the impact of transformational leaders, defined as those:

“who transform followers’ personal values and self-concepts, move them to higher levels of needs and aspirations and raise the performance expectations of their followers.” (p. 265)

in terms of innovation, considered as:

“the creation of valuable and useful new products/services within an organizational context.” (p. 266)

The participants were employees and their leaders in micro and small-sized Turkish soft-ware development companies. A positive influence of transformational leadership on organ-izational innovation was observed. However, the relationship between these two variables was stronger when there were high levels of external support (technical and financial assist-ance). On the other hand, the moderating effect of internal support for innovation, in terms of an innovation-supporting climate and adequate resources was not significant, contrary to what was hypothesized by the researchers. These researchers went further, underscoring the importance of transformational leadership to organizational innovation. For this reason, as practical implications of their study, Gumusluoglu and Ilsev suggest that leaders should incorporate behaviors that characterize this style of leadership, such as taking into account the employees’ needs, aspirations, and skills; inspiring and motivating employees towards an exciting vision; and stimulating them intellectually.

To conclude this section, it might be highlighted that much progress has been made in mapping out the wide range of features that positively impact creativity in the organiza-tional environment. Numerous scholars have suggested ways to infuse the organizational environment with elements conducive to creativity, such as the ones previously pointed out.

A. INTRODUCTION


To have a more complete picture of the complex choreography of creativity in the organiza-tional setting, it is also necessary to spot the potential inhibitors of creativity in this environ-ment. This topic will be addressed below.

Inhibiting Factors to Creativity in the Organizational Setting

The numerous obstacles that may hinder the expression of the individual’s creativity have been largely discussed in creativity literature. These obstacles have been classified in many ways by different authors, who have pointed out characteristics of the person, and others of the environment, which may inhibit expression of creativity. Shallcross (1981), for example, categorized the barriers to utilizing creative potential into historical, biologi-cal, physiological, social, and psychological types. Jones (1993) distinguishes strategic, val-ues, perceptual and self-image barriers. Adams (1986) identified a list of blocks, including perceptual, emotional, cultural, environmental, intellectual, and expressive blocks. Parnes (1967) discriminated between internal and external factors that stifle creative thinking, and Alencar (2001c) identified obstacles to personal creativity, through the use of the Obstacles to Personal Creativity Inventory (Alencar, 1999). This instrument includes 66 items, which are answered on a 5-point scale, varying from totally disagree to totally agree. Examples of the items are:

I would be more creative if …

1. I were not afraid to express what I think,2. I had more time to elaborate my ideas,3. I had more opportunities to put my ideas into practice,4. there was more recognition of creative work,5. I had more opportunities to make mistakes without being criticized,6. I had more enthusiasm, and7. I concentrated more on the tasks I am doing.

The instrument validation study resulted in four factors that may most likely block the expression of personal creativity, named Inhibition/Shyness; Lack of Time/Opportunity; Social Repression; and Lack of Motivation. Studies conducted with this instrument in sam-ples of Brazilian and Mexican university students and elementary, high school and higher education teachers indicated that Lack of Time/Opportunity was the most frequent cluster of obstacles among the participants of different studies (Alencar, 2001c; Alencar & Fleith, 2003b; Alencar, Fleith, & Martínez, 2003; Castro, 2007; Joly & Guerra, 2004). The items included in this factor refer to conditions external to the individual, including elements from the environment perceived as impediments for a more complete expression of the indi-vidual’s creativity.

More specific to the organizational environment, the identification of potential inhibi-tors to creativity has been a focus of increasing attention. A description of these factors was offered by Bruno-Faria and Alencar (1996; Alencar & Bruno-Faria, 1997) from data collected from Brazilian employees from different organizations, who were interviewed on the most prevalent obstacles to creativity in any organizational environment, as well as in their own work environment. The most frequent obstacles pointed out were the organization struc-ture, which was described as rigid, bureaucratic, with excessive hierarchies and centralized

A. INTRODUCTION


power; managers, characterized by not being receptive to the individuals’ new ideas and products; organizational culture, taken as averse to risk taking, with rejection of new ideas, reinforcement of the fear of making mistakes and the fear of changes; and personal rela-tionships in the work place characterized by lack of dialogue and group activities, lack of reliance among the staff and frequent conflicts. In describing the obstacles to creativity in the organization where these employees worked, high volume of tasks with intense time pressure, as well as frequent political changes, resulting in alterations in the norms and redi-rection of the organizational goals were also described. Some of these elements were sim-ilar to those reported by Brazilian engineers, who were questioned about facilitating and inhibiting factors to the expression of their creative capacity. When asked to indicate the factors that block their personal creativity, elements of the work environment, such a rigid structure, excessive pressure, bureaucracy, as well as authoritarian and centralized manag-ers were pointed out, followed by personal characteristics, such as fear of being criticized, insecurity and lack of flexibility (Alencar & Fleith, 2004).

Other scholars who have addressed potential inhibiting factors to creativity in the organi-zational environment are Amabile (1999; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Hill & Amabile, 1993), Blecher (2005), Talbot (1993) and Van Gundy (1997). Amabile has identified several factors that might inhibit creativity in the workplace, including: a conservative, low risk attitude among top management; lack of autonomy on how to do the job tasks or reach a certain goal; an inappropriate evaluation system without feedback on the tasks done and unreal-istic expectations; insufficient resources, both in terms of equipment as well as people; time pressure, having too much to do in too little time; excessive emphasis on the status quo, with reluctance of managers and employees to changing the way of doing tasks and an unwillingness to take risks; competition between teams and employees, which encourages a defensive attitude; poor project management, with the presence of managers who are una-ble to establish clear goals; and an inadequate communication system.

Bureaucracy, risk aversion, internal disputes, lack of resources and deficient communi-cation were the main blocks to creativity identified by Blecher (2005), who interviewed 15 innovation consultants on the enemies to creativity in organizations. On the other hand, Talbot (1993) reported that, according to engineers and scientists who participated in crea-tivity courses conducted by him, characteristics of the boss, the colleagues and the systems were taken as creativity inhibitors in the workplace. The boss’s indecision, his or her dis-like for novelty, attitudes of taking credit for the ideas of employees, and playing people off against each other were some of the behaviors which were found to stifle creativity. Colleagues who do not collaborate, with no team spirit and an oppressive organizational climate, a highly centralized organizational structure and excessive formalization of rules, policies, relationships, and procedures were some other inhibitors that were pointed out.

Talbot also discussed the self as an inhibitor, identifying the course participant’s own cre-ativity-inhibiting actions in the workplace, which may stifle creativity, and that should be modified in order to help the implementation of a more promising work climate. Several of the previous inhibitors are also discussed by Van Gundy in his categorization of barri-ers to innovation, which included structural barriers, such as stratification, formalization and centralization; social/political barriers as, for example, norms that reinforce conform-ity; procedural barriers, which refer to policies, procedures, and regulations that may inhibit creativity/innovation; resource barriers, including people, time, financial supplies and

A. INTRODUCTION


information; and individual/attitudinal barriers, which refer to employees’ characteristics, such as fear of risks, intolerance of uncertainty and a non cooperative attitude.

In creativity programs conducted by Alencar (1996a) in several Brazilian state companies, the inhibitors to creativity in the organizations as perceived by participants of the program was addressed as a topic. In response to the request to identify such inhibitors, the partici-pants indicated the most frequent factors that stifle creativity to be:

1. intransigency and authoritarian attitudes, with the predominance of an unaccepting climate towards opinions different from those pre-established,

2. protectionism and paternalism, with the presence and/or people who work together to defend restrict interests, indifferent to the organization’s interest as a whole,

3. lack of integration between sectors and divisions; with no common goals, excessive individualism, and lack of cooperation and team spirit,

4. lack of support to put into practice new ideas; negligence or mistrust towards new ideas, and

5. lack of encouragement of employees, who are discouraged by an oppressive climate and lack of recognition on individual efforts and production.

Inhibitors to creativity in the organizational setting may also be identified through scales included in instruments designed to measure work environment conducive to creativ-ity. In its earlier edition, the Work Environment Inventory (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989) included four scales on environment obstacles to creativity, named time pressure, evalua-tion, status quo and political problems. Some years later, these four scales were reduced to only two, named organizational impediments and workload pressure. The first scale com-prises items on political problems, harsh criticism of new ideas, destructive internal com-petition, avoidance of risk, and overemphasis on the status quo. The second scale included items related to extreme time pressures, unrealistic expectations for productivity, and dis-tractions from creative work (Amabile, Gryskiewicz, Burnside, & Koester, 1990).

Another instrument described in the literature is the Barriers for Creativity in the Workplace Questionnaire (Kwasniewska & Necka, 2004). This is a 60-item instrument, rep-resenting ten categories of work barriers. However, four factors were obtained in its val-idation study. Two of them reflect clearly impediments to creativity in the organizational environment, namely: bureaucratic climate, with items representing lack of encouragement, inflexibility, and negative attitude towards individual initiative; and excessive control, with items referring to a feeling of being excessively controlled by superiors, regulations, and habitual practices of the company. The two other factors were good communication and resources. They represent incentives to creativity in the organizational setting.

Indicators of Climate for Creativity Questionnaire (Bruno-Faria, in press; Bruno-Faria & Alencar, 1998) focuses on factors in the work environment that may be impediments to cre-ativity in the work environment, besides those previously described as facilitating factors. The four impeding factors were: an excessive number of tasks and scarcity of time; block-age to new ideas; resistance to risk taking, and organizational problems. Examples of items of each of these factors are: the excessive number of tasks impedes me from having time to reflect about the best way of accomplishing them; my supervisor blocks my initiative at work; the managers do not risk new alternatives in doing the work; the approval of several hierarchical levels is necessary to implementation of a new idea.

A. INTRODUCTION

COnCludIng REmARks 105

The identification of obstacles to creativity in the organizational environment, as those previously outlined, contributes to the process of fostering creativity in the workplace. The instruments described in this section may help to attain this goal. According to Cuatrecasas (1995):

“discussions should be focused less on ‘what can we do to promote creativity’ and more on how we can remove those barriers that suppress the creative drive.” (p. 205),

highlighting the importance of actions to eliminate the barriers that stifle the creative drive, which are common in many organizations. This would help in designing a promising organizational environment to creativity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Creativity in the organization is the result of a highly complex realm of factors. In this chapter, the central focus has been individual characteristics and organizational features, which interact amongst themselves in a dynamic and complex way in the process of pro-moting creativity. The report presented in this chapter does not cover all the configuration facets implied in creativity in the organizational setting. Various topics related to facilitating and inhibiting factors in the organizational environment did not receive the attention they deserve, and only a reduced number of individual and contextual variables were discussed. In addition, facilitators and inhibitors were treated as constant across domains, which is not true. The numerous components that converge for creativity to take place in a specific domain are not necessarily the same in another domain. Furthermore, several variables of outstanding importance were treated superficially.

A review of literature indicates that much progress has occurred, especially in the last two decades, in mapping out the distinct features that shape an organizational environment conducive to creativity. Personal characteristics, contextual conditions and the multiple interactions among personal and contextual features that contribute to creativity flourish-ing in the work environment were the focus of numerous studies. In spite of this, we are still at an early stage of understanding the extent that different variables relating to individu-als, groups/teams and organizations impact creativity. Much more research is needed to fill the gaps in respect to facilitators and inhibitors to creativity in organizations. With regard to personal factors, for example, there are several other creativity-relevant characteristics not discussed in this chapter that deserve more attention in future work; mood states, self- efficacy, individuals’ self-concept in relation to creative performance, abilities related with emotional intelligence are some of these. Similarly, more studies are needed with respect to the extent that organizational context variables, such as job complexity, co-workers char-acteristics, time deadlines, and physical work environment affect individual creative per-formance. The dynamic interactions among different contextual variables as well as among various personal characteristics that influence creative achievement also need more work.

A scarcity of reliable instruments to measure facilitators and inhibitors to organizational creativity is a factor that delays the development of research on this topic. Instruments of scientific quality for identifying possible barriers to creativity in organizations are still

A. INTRODUCTION


scarce, when compared to measuring facilitators. However, even in respect to creativity facilitators in organizations, there are not many reliable instruments available in the litera-ture, as noted previously by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004). Thus, more research is needed on measurement instruments that might be used to identify facilitators and inhibitors to cre-ativity in the workplace. The need of creativity measures is even greater in countries with a low tradition of studies on organizational creativity, as is the case for Brazil and other coun-tries in South America. In addition, the instruments available in English or other languages need adaptation and validation before their use with employees from other countries, with varying values and cultural practices. This is a factor that needs to be taken into account by scholars in different part, of the world who are interested in identifying factors that influence organizational creativity through instruments available in the US or European literature.

The cross-cultural literature on organizational creativity is very limited. Cultural ele-ments from different countries that promote or stifle creativity is a topic little investigated. Cross-cultural studies are necessary to reveal possible differences among different cultures in respect to creativity facilitators and inhibitors in the work setting. It is possible that a facilitator in a country may be considered as an inhibitor by employees from another coun-try and vice-versa. But, even within a country, huge differences may be observed between the cultures prevailing in diverse regions, affecting individual characteristics and social contexts relevant to the blooming of creativity. Thus, as previously highlighted by Leung, Au and Leung (2004), it is important to evaluate the degree of generalizability of findings obtained in one society to another.

An examiantion of the literature reveals that most studies on creativity facilitators and inhibi-tors have adopted a quantitative approach or qualitative methods. More studies are needed that combine the two methodological approaches, getting data, for example, through invento-ries as well as through interview and observation. Moreover, most of the studies conducted on creativity facilitators and inhibitors have adopted a cross-sectional design. Longitudinal research design should also be adopted in future studies to identify changes or continuity of the multi-ples context variables that impact creativity in the organizational setting.

One issue that deserves further discussion is the optimum strategy to nurture organi-zational creativity: Should intentional effort to remove inhibitors occur before embracing creativity facilitating practices? Is the removal of identified barriers enough for creativity to take place in the organizational setting? Does the lack of a facilitator mean the presence of an inhibitor? Should facilitating practices be adopted in the work place without taking into account possible creativity inhibitors? It is our point of view that the identification and removal of barriers are as important as the introduction or maintenance of creativity facili-tating factors. Thus, both should occur simultaneously.

It is also necessary to be aware that there are inhibitors, such as a high degree of bureauc-racy and political problems, very common in public organizations from Brazil and other countries of the world, which are very difficult to remove. Much effort is required to decrease their intensity in order to prevent them impeding the flourishing of creativity in the work place. A huge challenge in many cases!

It is noteworthy that the search for individuals with characteristics associated with cre-ativity in the job market has been a tonic in many organizations in different parts of the world. However, several authors, like Cropley (2005) and Gilson (2008), underscored the

A. INTRODUCTION

107REFEREnCEs

scarcity of professionals who stand out for their creativity. Cropley, for instance, presents data collected in Australia revealing that universities are not providing the necessary train-ing for the preparation of creative professionals, characterized by the domain of efficient strategies to approach the new, to deal with the unknown, to face the everyday heterogene-ous situations and to solve unexpected problems. It is reported that 75% of all newly gradu-ated employees were pointed out by the companies that admitted them as being “deficient” in creativity, problem solving and critical and independent thinking. Also Gilson (2008) refers to an article published in one of the most well known newspapers from England—The Economist—in which it is reported that:

“the main challenge faced by organizations nowadays is not to find or employ workers willing to earn low wages, but to hire individuals with high intellectual capacity and especially, with the ability to think creatively”. (p. 304)

To inject creativity into organizations, however, it is not enough to ensure that profession-als with the ability to think creatively are hired, as highlighted previously in this chapter. Creativity will thrive only with the intentional and determined efforts of the organizational actors in respect to receptivity, recognition and support to new ideas, besides the necessary conditions to their implementation. As it might be concluded from an analysis of the litera-ture, the construction of a work environment that promotes creativity is an extremely com-plex and challenging task. However, the benefits of fostering creativity in the workplace for the individuals, organizations and society are unquestionable. It is hoped that the content presented here contributes to the discussion on how to foster creativity in the workplace. It is also hoped that it inspires those interested in investigating some of the elements of the choreography underlying the construction of a promising creativity environment.

ReferencesAdams, J. L. (1986). Conceptual blockbusting: A pleasurable guide to better problem solving. New York, NY: Norton.Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996a). A gerência da criatividade [Managing creativity]. São Paulo, Brazil: Pearson/Makron Books.Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996b). A medida da criatividade [The measure of creativity]. In L. Pasquali (Ed.), Teoria e

método de medida em ciências do comportamento [Measurement theory and method in the behavioral sciences] (pp. 305–316). Brasília, Brazil: INEP.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1998a). Promovendo um ambiente favorável à criatividade nas organizações [Promoting a favorable enviromment for creativity in organizations]. Revista de Administração de Empresas [Journal of Organizations Administration], 38, 18–25.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1998b). Personality traits of Brazilian creative scientists. Gifted and Talented International, 13, 14–18.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2001a). Pesquisadores que se destacam por sua produção criativa: hábitos de trabalho, escolha profissional, processo de criação e aspirações [Outstanding creative researchers: Work habits, professional choice, creative process, and aspirations]. In E. M. L. S. Alencar (Ed.), Criatividade e educação de superdotados [Creativity and gifted education] (pp. 76–98). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2001b). Fostering creativity in the work environment: a Brazilian program. In M. I. Stein (Ed.), Creativity’s global correspondents—2001 (pp. 19–28). Delfay Beach, FL: Winslow Press.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2001c). Obstacles to personal creativity among university students. Gifted Education International, 15, 133–140.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2006). El proceso creativo: Mecanismos subyacentes [The creative process: Underlying mecha-nisms]. In S. Torre & V. Violant (Eds.), Comprender y evaluar la creatividad [Understanding and evaluating creativity] (pp. 191–196). Málaga, Spain: Ediciones Algibe.

A. INTRODUCTION


Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2007). O papel da escola no desenvolvimento do talento criativo [The role of school in the development of creative talent]. In D. S. Fleith & E. M. L. S. (Eds.), Desenvolvimento de talentos e altas habilidades [Development of talent and high ability] (pp. 151–162). Porto Alegre, Brazil: ArtMed.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2009). O papel da expertise na produção criativa: contribuições teóricas e empíricas [The role of expertise on the creative production: Theoretical and empirical contributions]. Revista de Psicologia, 28, 13–27.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Bruno-Faria, M. F. (1997). Characteristics of an organizational environment which stimulate and inhibit creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 271–281.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Bruno-Faria, M. F. (2007). Criatividade nas organizações [Creativity in organizations]. In SESI (Ed.), Criatividade [Creativity] (pp. 31–49). Brasília, Brazil: SESI.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2003). Criatividade. Múltiplas perspectivas [Creativity. Multiple perspectives]. Brasília, Brazil: Editora da UnB.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2003). Barreiras à criatividade pessoal entre professores de distintos níveis de ensino [Obstacles to personal creativity among teachers from different educational levels]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica [Psychology: Reflection and Criticism], 16, 63–69.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Fatores facilitadores e inibidores à expressão da capacidade de criar segundo estudantes de engenharia e engenheiros [Facilitating and inhibiting factors to the creative capacity according to engineering students and engineers]. Boletim da Academia Paulista de Psicologia [Paulista Academy of Psychology Bulletin], 24, 33–41.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (in press). A questão da medida em criatividade [The question of measuring cre-ativity]. In L. Pasquali (Ed.), Teoria e método de medida em ciências do comportamento [Measurement theory and method in the behavioral sciences] (2nd ed.). Porto Alegre, Brazil: ArtMed.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Martínez, A. M. (2003). Obstacles to creativity among Brazilian and Mexican university students: a comparative study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 179–192.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Galvão, A. (2007). Condições favoráveis à criação nas ciências e nas artes [Favorable condi-tions to creativity in sciences and in arts]. In A. M. R. Virgolim (Ed.), Talento criativo. Expressão em múltiplos con-textos [The creative talent. Expression in multiple contexts] (pp. 103–120). Brasília, Brazil: Editora UnB.

Alvarado, L. D. (2006). Las organizaciones creativas como seres vivos [The creative organizations as living beings]. In S. Torre & V. Violant (Eds.), Comprender y evaluar la creatividad [Understanding and evaluating creativity] (pp. 375–382). Málaga, Spain: Ediciones Algibe.

Amabile, T. A. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Amabile, T. A. (1996a). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Amabile, T. A. (1996b). The motivation for creativity in organizations. Harvard Business School, January, 1–15.Amabile, T. A. (1999). Como não matar a criatividade [How not to kill creativity]. HSM Management, 12, 110–116.Amabile, T. A. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft of creativity. American Psychologist, 56,

333–336.Amabile, T. A., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The Creative Environment Scales: Work Environment Inventory.

Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–253.Amabile, T. A., Gryskiewicz, N. D., Burnside, R., & Koester, N. (1990). Creative Environment Scales: Work

Environment Inventory. A guide to its development and use. Center for Creative Leadership.Amabile, T. A., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the

componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33–64). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Amabile, T. A., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

Amabile, T. A., & Sensabaugh, S. J. (1989). Public and private creativity. In B. G. Whiting & G. T. Salomon (Eds.), Key issues in creativity, innovation & entrepreneurship (pp. 101–110). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Amabile, T. A., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Touchstone.

Baer, M., Oldham, G., Jacobsohn, G. C., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2008). The personality composition of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team confidence. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 255–282.

Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Blecher, N. (2005). Idéias que viram dinheiro [Ideas that generate money]. Exame [Exam], 39, 22–28.

A. INTRODUCTION

109REFEREnCEs

Bruno-Faria, M. F. (2003). Criatividade, inovação e mudança organizacional [Creativity, innovation and organiza-tional change]. In S. M. F. Lima (Ed.), Mudança organizacional: Teoria e gestão [Organizational change: Theory and management] (pp. 111–141). São Paulo, Brazil: Atlas.

Bruno-Faria, M. F. (in press). Instrumento de clima para criatividade no ambiente de trabalho [An instrument of climate for creativity in the work environment]. In E. M. L. S. Alencar, M. F. Bruno-Faria, & D. S. Fleith (Eds.), Medidas de criatividade: Teoria e prática [Measurements of creativity: Theory and practice]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: ArtMed.

Bruno-Faria, M. F., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996). Estímulos e barreiras à criatividade no ambiente de trabalho [Stimulants and blockages to creativity in the workplace]. Revista de Administração [Journal of Administration], 31, 50–61.

Bruno-Faria, M. F., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1998). Indicadores de clima para a criatividade: Um instrumento de med-ida da percepção de estímulos e barreiras à criatividade no ambiente de trabalho [Indicators of climate for crea-tivity: a measurement instrument of incentives and obstacles to creativity in the work environment]. Revista de Administração [Journal of Administration], 33, 86–91.

Castro, J. S. R. (2007). Criatividade escolar: Relação entre tempo de experiência docente e tipo de escola [Creativity in schools: Relationship between teaching experience and type of school]. Brasília, Brazil: University of Brasília. Unpublished Master Thesis.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, A. J. (2005). Creativity in education and learning. London, UK: Routledge.Cropley, A. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391–404.Csikszentmihályi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The

nature of creativity (pp. 325–329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Csikszentmihályi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihályi & H. Gardner (Eds.),

Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135–157). Westport, CT: Praeger.Csikszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: HarperCollins.Csikszentmihályi, M. (1997). Happiness and creativity. Futurist, 31, S8–S12.Csikszentmihályi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativ-

ity (pp. 313–335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Csikszentmihályi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. In

C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations. Ivory tower visions & real world voices (pp. 167–172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cuatrecasas, P. (1995). Corporate America creativity held hostage. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative actions in organizations. Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp. 201–205). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cyert, R. M. (1988). Designing a creative organization. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Handbook for creative and innovative man-agers (pp. 185–195). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.Drabkin, S. (1996). Enhancing creativity when solving contradictory technical problems. Journal of Professional Issues

in Engineering Education and Practice, 4, 78–82.Ericsson, K. A. (1999). Creative expertise as superior reproducible performance: Innovative and flexible aspects of

expert performance. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 329–333.Ferraz, E. (2002). O que faz com que algumas empresas sejam brilhantes na arte de inovar [What characterizes out-

standing companies in the innovation art]. Exame [Exam], 36, 47–61.Ford, C. M. (1995). Creativity is a mystery. Clues from the investigators’ notebooks. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.),

Creative actions in organizations. Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp. 12–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Galvão, A. (2000). Practice in orchestral life: An exploratory study of string players’ learning processes. Reading, UK:

Reading University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.Galvão, A. (2001). Pesquisa sobre expertise: Perspectivas e limitações [Research on expertise: Perspectives and limi-

tations]. Temas em Psicologia [Themes in Psychology], 9, 223–238.Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: a review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at the individual,

group, and organizational levels. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 303–322). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gomes, J. F. S., & Almeida, R. (2009). Os vectores da criatividade no século XXI. [The creativity vectors in XXI century]. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa.

A. INTRODUCTION


Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: The roles of inter-

nal and external support for innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 264–277.Hill, K. G., & Amabile, T. M. (1993). A social psychology perspective in creativity: Intrinsic motivation and creativ-

ity in the classroom and workplace. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. O. Firestien & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and recognizing ceativity. The emergence of a discipline (pp. 400–432). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hitt, M. A. (1975). The creative organization: Tomorrow’s survivor. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 9, 263–290.Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: a quantitative review. Creativity

Research Journal, 19, 69–90.Joly, M. C. R., & Guerra, P. B. C. (2004). Compreensão em leitura e barreiras à criatividade: um estudo com uni-

versitários ingressantes [Reading comprehension and obstacles to creativity: a study with university students]. Psico, 35, 151–159.

Jones, L. (1993). Barriers to creativity and their relationship to individual, group, and organizational behavior. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity. The emergence of a discipline (pp. 133–154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kim, K. H. (2007). Exploring the interactions between Asian culture (Confusionism) and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 28–53.

King, N. (1990). Innovation at work: the research literature. In M. A. West & J. L Farr (Eds.), Innovation ad creativity at work. Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 15–59). New York, NY: Wiley.

Kirton, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and personality. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 282–304). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Kwasniewska, J., & Necka, E. (2004). Perception of the climate for creativity in the workplace: the role of the level in the organization and gender. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 187–196.

Leung, K., Au, A., & Leung, B. W. C. (2004). Creativity and innovation: East–West comparison with an emphasis on Chinese societies. In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui & G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity. When East meet West (pp. 113–136). Singapore: World Scientific.

Lewis, G. (1999). Motivation for productive creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 179–202). Dreskills, NJ: Hampton Press.

Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1995). Promoting creativity in organizations. In C. M. Ford & A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 115–120). London, UK: Sage.

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognitive approach (pp. 269–302). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of the creative process. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR’s contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity. In I. A. Taylor &

J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 60–89). Chicago, IL: Aldine.MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, C. A. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments

within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119–140.Mathisen, G. E., Martinsen, O. M., & Einarsen, S. (2008). The relationship between creative personality composition,

innovative team climate, and team innovativeness: an input process–output perspective. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 13–31.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., & Sager, C. E. (2003). Picking the right material: Cognitive processing skills and their role in creative thought. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 3–18). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Muñoz-Doyague, M. F., González-Álvarez, N., & Nieto, M. (2008). An examination of individual factors and employees’ creativity: the case of Spain. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 21–33.

Norins, H. (1990). Traveling creative workshops. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Pannells, T. C., & Claxton, A. F. (2008). Happiness, creative ideation, and locus of control. Creativity Research Journal,

20, 67–71.Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York, NY: Charles Scribners.

A. INTRODUCTION

111REFEREnCEs

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53–66.

Robinson, A. G., & Stern, S. (1997). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement actually happen. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 55, 657–687.Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447–479.Shallcross, D. J. (1981). Teaching creative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: a historical overview. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Shavinina, L. V., & Seeratan, K. L. (2003). On the nature of individual innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The inter-

national handbook of innovation (pp. 31–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Simonton, D. K. (2003). Exceptional creativity across life span: The emergence and manifestation of creative genius.

In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 293–308). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Smith, G. F. (2003). Toward a logic of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation

(pp. 347–365). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Smith-Bingham, R. (2006). Public policy, innovation and the need for creativity. In N Jackson, M. Oliver & J. Wisdom

(Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education. An imaginative curriculum (pp. 10–18). London, UK: Routledge.Soto, C. L. B. (2006). Creatividad organizacional: Elementos para la discusión [Organizational creativity: Elements

for discussion]. Recrearte, 6, 1–14.Sternberg, R. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: the acquisition of expert perform-

ance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 347–354). NJ: LEA.Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence and creativity synthesized. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York,

NY: The Free Press.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Talbot, R. J. (1993). Creativity in the organizational context: Implications for training. In S. G. Isaksen,

M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity. The emergence of a dis-cipline (pp. 177–214). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativ-ity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 27–41.

Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Assessment and measurement in creativity and creative problem solving. In J. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 59–93). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 95–124). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Gundy, A. (1987). Organizational creativity and innovation. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 358–379). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Wechsler, S. M. (2006). Estilos de pensar e criar [Thinking and creating styles]. Campinas, Brazil: LAMP/PUC.Weisberg, R. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 226–250). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies.

New York, NY: Wiley.West, M. A., & Richter, A. W. (2008). Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at work. In J. Zhou & C. E.

Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 211–236). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: an empirical study. The Journal

of Creative Behavior, 42, 61–73.Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Documents

Handbook of Organizational Creativity || Creativity in Organizations