Motivating Creativity.pdf

8/14/2019 Motivating Creativity.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motivating-creativitypdf 1/21

Motivating Creativity

in OrganizationsO N D O I N G W H A T Y O U LOVE

AND LOVING W H A T You D o

Teresa M Am abile

A

rth ur Schawlow, winne r of the Nobel prize in physics in 1981, was

once asked what, in his opinion, made the difference between highly

creative and less creative scientists. He replied, The labor of love

aspect is important. The most successful scientists often are not themost talented. But they are the ones who are impelled by curiosity. They've got

to know what the answer is. ' Schawlow's insights about scientific creativity

highlight the Importance of intrinsic motivation the motivation to work on some-

thing because it is interesting, involving, exciting, satisfying, or personally chal-

lenging. There is abundant evidence that people will be most creative when they

are primarily intrinsically motivated, rather than extrinsically motivated by

expected evaluation, surveillance, competition with peers, dictates from supe-

riors, or th e promise of rewards.^

Interestingly, this Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity applies notonly to scientific creativity, but to bu siness creativity as we ll. Often, financial

success is closely tied to a passion for the work itself Michael Jordan, who by

the mid-1990s was the most financially successful basketball player in history,

insisted on a love of the game clause in his contract— securing for him th e

right to play in pick-up games when eve r he wished. Robert Carr, a primary

developer of the first pen computer, was captivated by the opportunity to do

something spectacular that had never been done before. W hen entrep reneu r

Jerry Kaplan described the idea to him, Carr reacted with intense excitement:

Jerry, it's not a question of whether I wan t to do this. I h ve to do thi s. This is

im portan t. This is profound. . . . It's not very often that opportu nities like this

come along— something really big, a chance to really m ake a difference. Maybe



Motivating Creativity in Organizations

When Steve Wozniak invented the micro-computer, he demonstrated

creativity in new product development; for all intents and purposes, such a thing

had not existed before. When Walt Disney created Disneyland, he demonstrated

creativity in new service development; he essentially Invented a new form of

entertainment. Although most people think of creativity in business as limited to

the creation of something new to sell, there are other forms as well. When Fred

Smith developed the concept for Federal Express, he certainly was not inventing

a new service or a new product; humans had heen delivering messages and

packages to each oth er for thousa nds of years. In this instance, th e creativity

resided in the system for delivery: a hub system, where all packages were flown

to Memphis on the same day, sorted, and distributed for air delivery the next

day. Creativity exists in less famous, more humble, examples as well: the ad

campaign that revitalizes a dying brand, or the product line extension that cap-

tures additional market share.

At its heart, creativity is simply th e prod uction of novel, ap propriate ideas

in ny realm of hu m an activity, from science, to the arts, to education, t o busi-

ness, to everyday life. The ideas must be novel—different from wh at's been don e

before—but they can't be simply bizarre; they must be appropriate to the prob-

lem or opportunity presented. Creativity is the first step in innovation, which is

the successful implementation of those novel, appropriate ideas. And innovation

is absolutely vital for long-term corporate success. Because the business world is

seldom static, and because the pace of change appears to be rapidly accelerating,

no firm that continues to deliver the same products and services in the sameway can long survive. By contrast, firms tha t p repare for the future by imple-

menting new ideas oriented toward this changing world are likely to thrive.*

Individual reativity

To some extent, intrinsic motivation resides in a person's own personal-

ity.^ Some people are more strongly driven than others by the enjoyment and

sense of challenge in their w ork. For exam ple, Pablo Casals was driven by pas-

sion for the cello from the day he first heard th e instru me nt played: I had n everheard such a beautiful sound before. A radiance filled me . I said, 'Father, th at is

the m ost wonderful instrum ent I have ever heard. That is wh at I want to play.' ^

The novelist John Irving, in explaining his motivation to write for up to 14

ho urs in a single day, said, The unspo ken factor is love. The reason I can work

so hard at my writing is that it's not work for me. ^

Although part of intrinsic motivation depends on personality, my stu-

dents, colleagues, and I hav e discovered in 20 years of research th at a person's

social environment can have a significant effect on that person's level of intrinsic

motivation at any point in time; the level of intrinsic motivation can, in turn,

have a significant effect on that person's creativity. Einstein described the damp-




I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific

prob lem s distasteful for an entire year. ** He later concluded, It is a very grave

mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted

by means of coercion and a sense of duty. ^

Much of the evidence on this connection between the social environ-

ment, intrinsic motivation, and creativity comes from controlled laboratory

experiments.'° In one such study, for example, college students were presented

with a simple artistic creativity task—m aking a paper collage with a standard set

of materials.'' Half of the students were randomly assigned to a condition where

they were offered a reward (money) for making the collage, and half were sim-

ply given the collage activity to do. In addition, half within each group were

given a choice; they were asked whether they would agree to make the collage

in order to get the money (in the choice/reward condition), or they were simply

asked whe ther they wanted to make the collage (in the choice/non -reward con-dition). Students in the no-choice condition were not offered any choice in the

matter; those in the no-choice/reward condition were simply presented with the

reward as a bonus, and those in the no -choice/non-rew ard condition w ere sim-

ply given the collage task.

The results were quite clear and striking. The students who had essen-

tially made a contract to do the activity in order to get the reward (choice/

reward condition) exhibited strikingly lower levels of creativity in their collages

than the other three groups. The means-end work environment— Do this

task as a means to the end of getting this reward —appears to have underminedtheir creativity. In contrast, however, those students who received the reward as

a bonus showed no diminishment in creativity. In fact, their creativity was higher

than those of the other groups. And, in keeping with the Intrinsic Motivation

Principle of Creativity, stud ents ' creativity w as correlated with their reported

interest in the collage activity; the more interested they were, the more creative

their collages were judged by art expe rts. Thus, it was not the f ct of reward, but

the perception of reward (resulting from the way in which it was presented) that

made the difference.

Another experiment addressed the Intrinsic Motivation hypothesis evenmore directly. In this study, young creative writers were asked to fill out a short

questionnaire before writing a poem.'^ The questionnaire was designed to have

them focus on either their intrinsic reasons for being a w riter {such as getting a

lot of pleasure out of something good that you have written) or their extrinsic

reasons for being a writer (such as getting rich and famous). (Participants in a

control condition filled out an unrelated, non-motivational questionnaire.) They

then wrote poems, which were later judged by experts in creative writing. The

writers in the intrinsic condition and the control condition wrote poems that

we re judged as quite creative, on average. However, those w ho h ad focused for

just a few minutes on the extrinsic motivations for their work wrote poems thaiwere significantly less creative.



Motivating O «ativfty in Organizations

The om ponentialThe ory of Individual reativity

According to conventional wisdom, creativity is something done by cre-

ative people. Even creativity researchers, for several decades, seemed to guide

their work by this principle, focusing predominantly on individual differences:What are creative people like, and how are they different from most people in

the world? Although this person-centered approach yielded some important

findings about the backgrounds, personality traits, and work styles of outstand-

ingly creative people,'* it was both limited and limiting. It offered little to practi-

tioners concerned with helping people to become more creative in their work,

and it virtually ignored the role of the social environment in creativity and inno-

vation. In contrast to the traditional approach, the Componential Theory of Cre-

ativity assumes that all humans with normal capacities are able to produce at

least moderately creative work in some domain, some of the time—and that the

social environment (the work environment) can influence both the level and

the frequency of creative behavior.

The theory includes three major components of individual (or small

team) creativity, each of which is necessary for creativity in any given domain:

expertise, creative-thinking skill, and intrinsic task m otivation (see Figure 1 ).'*

The componential theory suggests that creativity is most likely to occur when

people's skills overlap w ith their strongest intrinsic interests— their deepest pas-

sions—and that creativity will be higher, the h igher t he level of each of the three

com ponen ts. This is the creativity intersection depicted in Figure 1.

xp rtis

Expertise is the found ation for all creative w ork. It can be viewed as the

set of cognitive pathways that may be followed for solving a given problem or

doing a given task—the problem solver's netwo rk of possible wan derings. '^

The expertise component includes memory for factual knowledge, technical

proficiency, an d special talents in th e target work domain— such as expertise

in gene splicing, or in computer simulation, or in strategic management. For

example, a high-tech engineer's expertise includes his innate talent for imagin-

ing and thinking about complex engineering problems, as well as focusing in on

the important aspects of those problems; his factual knowledge about electron-

i s his familiarity with past work and current developments in high-tech engi-

neering; a nd the technical skills he has acquired in designing, carrying out, and

interpreting research.

reative Thinking

This com pon ent provides that something extra of creative perform-

ance.'^ Assuming that a person has some incentive to perform an activity, per-

formance will be technically good or adequ ate or acceptable if th e requisiteexpertise is in place. However, even with expertise at an extraordinarily high




F I G U R E I . 3 Component Model of Creativity

CreativitySkills

TaskMotivation

lacking. These skills include a cognitive style favorable to taking new perspec-tives on problem s, an application of tech niqu es (or heuristics ) for the explo -

ration of new cognitive pathways, and a working style conducive to persistent,

energetic pursuit of one's work.

Creative thinking depends to some extent on personality characteristics

related to independence, self-discipline, orientation toward risk-taking, tolerance

for ambiguity, perseverance in the face of frustration, and a relative lack of con-

cern for social approval.'^ However, creativity skills can be increased by the

learning and practice of techn iques to improve cognitive flexibility and intellec-

tual independence.

An engineer's arsenal of creativity skills might include his ability to



Motivat ing Creart ivity in Organizat ions

results, his tolerance for ambiguity in the process of deciding on the appropriate

interpreta tion for puzzling data, his ability to suspend judg me nt as he considers

different approaches, and his ability to break out of strict algorithms for attack-

ing a problem. He might also have learned to employ some of the creativity

heuristics described by theor ists: When all else fails, try som ething c ou nte rin tu-itive; '** or Make th e familiar strange. ''* Finally, if he is produc tively creative ,

his work style is probably marked by an ability to concentrate effort for long

periods of time-^° and an ability to abandon unproductive strategies, temporarily

putting aside stubborn problems.^'

ntrinsic Task Mo tivation

Although the two skill components determine what a person is capable

of doing in a given domain, it is the task motivation component that determines

what that person actually will do. Motivation can be either intrinsic (driven bydeep interest and involvement in the work, by curiosity, enjoyment, or a per-

sonal sense of challenge) or extrinsic (driven by the desire to attain some goal

that is apart from the work itself —such as achieving a promised reward or

meeting a deadline or winning a competition). Although combinations of intrin-

sic and extrinsic motivation are com mo n, o ne is likely to be primary for a given

person doing a given task. A number of studies have shown that a primarily

intrinsic motivation will be more conducive to creativity than a primarily extrin-

sic motivation.

Task motivation makes the difference between what an engineer can doand what he will do. The former depends on his levels of expertise and creative

thinking skills. But it is his task motivation that determines the extent to which

he will fully engage his expertise and creative thinking skills in the service of

creative performance. To some extent, a high degree of intrinsic motivation can

even m ake up for a deficiency of expertise or creative thinkin g skills. A highly

intrinsically motivated person is likely to draw skills from other domains, or

apply great effort to acquiring necessary skills in the target domain,^^

Although a person's development of expertise and practice of creative

thinking skills can be influenced to some extent by the social enviro nm ent, thestrongest and most direct influence of the environment is probably on motiva-

tion. Certainly, a person starts out w ith a level of intrinsic m otivation that

depends on his or her basic enjoyment of the work. But experiments like those

described earlier have shown how a person's basic motivational orientation for a

task, and resulting creativity on that task, can be influenced by even momentary

alterations in the work environm ent. For example, an engineer may be highly

intrinsically motivated to undertake a new project of his own design, but he may

be singularly uninterested in a project handed to him by the direaor of the lab.

otivational Synergy




activity increases, intrinsic motivation must decrease.^^ But there is con siderable

evidence from field research that, under certain conditions, certain forms of

extrinsic motivation may combine synergistically with intrinsic mo tivation,

enhancing or at least not undermining) the positive effects of intrinsic m otiva-

tion on creativity. For exam ple, research in business organizations has uncov-

ered several extrinsic motivators operating as supports to creativity: reward and

recognition for creative ideas, clearly defined overall project goals, and frequent

constructive feedback on the work.^' .1

What determines whether extrinsic motivation will combine positively

with intrinsic motivation, or detract from it, in influencing creativity? There are

three important determinants: the person's initial motivational state, the type of

extrinsic motivator used, and the timing of the extrinsic motivation.

First, the initial level of intrinsic motivation may play a crucial role. It

may be that, if a person is deeply involved in the work because it is interesting

or personally challenging, that degree of intrinsic m otivation may be relatively

impervious to the und erm ining effects of extrinsic m otivators. Research has

shown that a person's attitudes and motives will be most subject to external

influences when those attitudes and motives are vague or ambiguous.^*' So, we

might expect additive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation when Intrinsic

motivation toward the work is already strong and salient. On the other hand, we

might expect negative effects when intrinsic motivation is relatively weak. Thus,

if an engineer is passionately interested in the development of the products he is

working on, he may be relatively im mu ne to negative effects of extrinsic moti-vators on his intrinsic mo tivation and creativity.

Second, the type of extrinsic motivation may make a difference. Syner-

gistic extrinsic motiva tors, including certain types of reward, recognition, and

feedback, do not necessarily undermine intrinsic motivation; indeed, they may

actually enhance some aspects of performance. These outcomes can result from

reward, recognition, and feedback that either confirm competence or provide

important information on how to improve performance; these are called infor

m tion l extrinsic motivators} ^ Positive outcomes can also result from reward,

recognition, and feedback that directly increase the person's involvement in thework itself; these are called en bling extrinsic m otivators. For example, if a high

tech firm recognizes outstanding performance by approving the allocation of

additional technical resources to its engineers, the effects on intrinsic motivation

are likely to be positive. On the other hand, constraint on how work can be

done, as well as other types of reward, recognition, and feedback, will be detri-

mental to intrinsic mo tivation and performa nce. These non-synergistic extrinsic

motivators, which are controlling extrinsic m otivators, may never combine posi-

tively with intrinsic motivation, because they undermine a person 's sense of self-

determination.^^ The engineer who works under stringent controls on how to

approach a project, or for whom rewards signify attempts to control his behav-ior, will likely evidence decreased intrinsic motivation and creativity.




Third, the timing of extrinsic motivation may be important. Recall that

creative ideas are marked by both novelty and appropriateness. While some

stages of the creative process are m ost impo rtant in determining the novelty of

an idea, other stages are more important in determining appropriateness. Syner-

gistic extrinsic motivators may be most useful at those stages of the creativeprocess where high degrees of novelty do not come into play—such as the gath-

ering of background information or the validation of a chosen solution. Here,

some level of outward focus, engendered by extrinsic motivation, may cue the

problem-solver to the appropriateness of certain kinds of information or the

workability of final solutions. However, it may be optimal to reduce all types of

extrinsic motivators at those stages requiring the greatest novelty—such as the

initial problem formulation or the generation of ideas.

The Intrinsic M otivation PrincipleAll of this research on mo tivation leads to the Intrinsic Motivation Prin-

ciple of Creativity, which can be formally stated as follows: Intrinsic motivation is

conducive to creativity. Controlling extrinsic mo tivation is detrimental to creativity but

informational or enabling extrinsic motivation can be conducive particularly if initial

levels of intrinsic motivation are high.

The W ork Environment for Creativity

Although the experimental research is important in establishing causalconnections between the social environment, motivation, and creativity, the

most directly relevant information comes from interview and survey studies

within corporations. It is through these studies that we began to understand

the social environment in organizations and how it might impact creativity.

Recently, with my colleagues Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey

Lazenby, and Michael Herron, I studied the work environments surrounding

project teams in a large company that we call High Tech Electronics Interna-

tional.^^ Our purpose was to determine whether and how the work environ-

m ents of highly creative pro jea s differed from the work envir onm ents of lesscreative projects. The primary research tool was an ins trum ent called KEYS

ssessing the C limate for Creativity. ^° It consists of 78 items that constitute eight

scales addressing different aspects of the w ork e nvir onm ent, plus two scales

assessing the work outcom es of creativity and productivity.* Of the eight envi-

ronment scales, six focus on Environmental Stimulants to Creativity—factors

that should be positively related to creative work outcomes— including freedom,

positive challenge, supervisory encouragement, work group supports, organiza-

tional encouragement, and sufficient resources. Two scales focus on Environ-

mental Obstacles to Creativity—factors that should be negatively related to

creative work outcomes—including organizational impediments and excessive

workload pressure. (See Table for scale descriptions.) Data on KEYS gathered




over a 12-year period, with over 12,000 individual employees from 26 different

companies, have established the reliability and validity of this instrument.*^

High Tech is a United States company of over 30,000 employees providing

diversified elearonics products to international markets. The company has sev-

eral divisions, with a large number of research and development projects going

on within each division at any point in time. We conducted this study in three

phases, across four divisions and a large number of projects. In Phase I, we

asked both technical and non-technical middle-level managers individually

to nominate both the highest-creativity and the lowest-creativity project with

which they had been involved during the previous three years in the company.

For both projects, we asked them to select only from that set of projects in which

creativity was both possible and desirable. This eliminated any low creativity

projects that simply involved carrying out a routine task, and it allowed us to

focus on differences between successful and unsuccessful attempts at creativeproject work. Instructions to the nominating managers defined creativity as

the production of novel and useful ideas by individuals or teams of individu-

als. These manag ers briefly described each nom inated project (using a standard

questionnaire) and completed a K YS work environment assessment on each

nominated project.

Phase 2 of the study was conducted to validate the creativity nominations

of Phase 1, by allowing independent expert assessments of the level of creativity

in the projects nominated in Phase 1. A group of experts from each of the four

target divisions was asked to independently rate the projects nominated fromthat division on creativity and several other dimensions. These experts were

unaware of the initial nomination status of the projects, and high- and low-

creativity projects were randomly intermixed in the experts' rating question-

naires. (They were asked to skip the ratings for any projects with which they

were not familiar.)

Phase 3 was conducted to validate any work en viron me nt differences

between the high- and low-creativity projects discovered in Phase 1. We selected

a sub-set of the projeas from Phase 1, those that had been most strongly and

reliably rated by the expert judges as either high in creativity or low in creativity.We then asked each member of those project teams to complete a K YS survey

to describe the work environment of his or her particular project. These respon-

dents did not know that the study concerned creativity, or that their projects had

been chosen for any particular reason. In fact, people were eliminated from par-

ticipation in Phase 3 if they had participated in Phase 1. Furthermore, each

respondent in Phase 3 focused on only one project, rather than the two contrast-

ing projects for Phase 1 respo nden ts. In this way, we attemp ted to eliminate any

biases that might have arisen w hen the Phase 1 respond ents explicitly con trasted

the work environment of a project that they considered highly creative with one

that they considered quite uncreative.

In Phase 1, the nominated high-creativity projects were significantly




TA BL E I . Summary of Results from Study of High Creativity and Low Creativity Projects at

High Tech Electronics International

YS

Scale Name

YS

Scale Description

Direction

of

Difference

Magnitude

of Difference

in Phase I

Magnitude

of Difference

in Phase 3

CREATIVITY

STIMULANT

SCALES

Organizational An organizational culture that encourages

Encouragement creativity through the f in constructive

judgment of ideas, rev/ard and re cognition

for creative work , mechanisms for

developing new ideas, an active flow of

ideas, and a shared vision o f wh t the

organization is trying to do.

High-

Creativity

higher

Strong^ Strong

Supervisory A supervisor who serves s a good work High-

Encouragement model, sets goals appropriately, supports Crea tivity

the wo rk group, values individual higher

contributions, and shows confidence in the

work group.

Moderate

Work Group A diversely skilled work group in which

Supports people communicate well, are open to

new ideas, constructively challenge each

other's work trust and help each other

and feel commrtted to the work they are

doing.

High-

Creativity

higher

Strong^ Strong^

Sufficient

Resources

Challenging

Work

Freedom

Access to approp riate resources, including

funds, materials, facilities, and in forma tion.

A sense of having to work hard on

challenging tasks and imp ortan t projects.

Freedom in deciding what wo rk to do or

ho w to do it; a sense of control over one's

work.

High-

Creativity

higher

High-

Creativity

higher

High-

Creativity

higher

Moderate''

Strong^

Strong*'

None

Strong

Moderate'

Stimulant scales, and significantly lower on the two w ork environ me nt obstacle

scales. See Table I. In addition, the high-creativity pr ojea s were h igher on the

two outcome scales assessing creativity and productivity.

In Phase 2 the expert ratings confirmed the initial nom inations made in

Phase 1: the previously-n om inated high-creativity proj ea s were indeed rated

significantly higher on creativity than the previously-nominated low-creativity

projects.

Phase 3 confirmed most of the findings from Phase see Table 1). Analy-

ses of the responses from projea-team members showed that the high-creativity

projects were significantly higher than the low-creativity projects on four of the




TA BL E I . Summary of Results from Study of High-Creativity and Low-Creativity Projects at

High Tech Electronics Internationa (continued)

KEYS

Scale Name

YS

Scale Description

Direction Magnitude Magnitude

of of Difference of Difference

Difference in Phase I in Phase 3

CRE TIVITY

OBST CLE

SC LES

Organizational A n organizational culture that impedes

Impediments creativity throu gh internal political

problem s, harsh crrticism of new ideas,

destructive internal comp eti t ion, an

avoidance o f risk, and an overemphasis on

the status quo.

Low-

Creativity

higher

Strong'' M oderate ''

Workload Extrem e time pressures, unrealistic Low-

Pressure expectations fo r prod uctivity, and Cre ativity

distractions fnom creative wo rk. higher

None

C R I T E R I O N

SC LES

Creativity A creative orga nization or unit, where a High-

great deal of creativity is called fo r and Cre ativity

whe re peop le believe they actually higher

produce creative work.

Strong Strong

Productivity A n efficient, effective, and prod uctive

organization or un i t

High-

Creativityhigher

Strong^ Modera te

N o te s ;

a. S trong designates effea sizes (partial eta-squared) of .21-.54. M od era te designates effect sizes of .10-.20. We ak designates effect sizes of

.05-.09. N one des ignate sef fe ct sizes of less th an .05.

b. Statistically significa nt

c. Marginal (.06 < p < 15)

environment stimulant scale. In addition the high-creativity projects were m ar-

ginally lower on

one of

the two work env ironm ent obstacle scales. Finallyas in

Phase 1 the high-creativity projects w ere h igher on the two outcome scales

assessing creativity and productivity.

Table 1 summarizes the work e nvir onm ent findings from Phases 1 and

of this study at High Tech Electronics Internatio nal . Clearly althoug h all aspects

of the work env ironm ent m ay exert influence some appear to carry m ore

weight in the differentiation betw een high- and low-creativity projects. Some-

wh at surprisingly thre e dimensions seem to play a relatively less prom inen t

role in organizational creativity: resources workload pressure and freedom.

However the differences between high- and low-creativity projects on five

dimensions were striking. In particular positive challenge in the work organiza-

tional encouragement work group supports supervisory encouragem ent and




behavior in organizations. Thus, this study clearly indicates that the work envi-

ronment within which people work relates significantly to the creativity of the

work that they produce.

Other researchers have also discovered aspects of work environments thatappear to affect creativity and innovation. Our tentative finding of the positive

impact of freedom or autonomy echoes a result obtained in a study of 200 R&D

managers in eight semi-conductor companies, where independence among R&D

personnel was identified as a key determinant of success." Various organiza-

tional supports have likewise appeared in other findings. In a survey of 77 stra-

tegic business units, the presence of innovation norms emerged as the single

most important predictor of the effectiveness of entrepreneurial strategy.^"* Using

a critical incidents methodology, an oth er study exam ined the treatm ent of new

ideas in high-technology and health-services organizations by gathering data

from several hundred managers." Several features of successful innovationswe re identified, including: the earm arking of special funds for highly experi-

men tal research and developm ent; the forma consideration of innov ators' ideas,

followed by feasibility studies; consideration of marketing issues in the early

stages of decision-making about an idea; substantial modification of most origi-

nal ideas prior to final adoption; adeq uate funding and consistent mon itoring

of such projects; and initial small-scale implementation of the new idea.

How th e W ork Environment for reativity hangesDuring Significant Organizational Events

In another recent study, Regina Conti and I set out to determine how the

environment for creativity and innovation might change in an organization that

is undergoing rapid transition.'^ Several months after our earlier study at High

Tech Electronics International, the company's management announced a major

(15-30%) downsizing. We returned and proceeded to collect KEYS data at three

additional points in time: half-way through the downsizing, just as the downsiz-

ing had ended, an d four m onth s after th e end of the downsizing. In addition, w e

conducted interviews with surviving employees at each of these three time peri-ods. The results showed a striking pattern. All of the Environmental Stimulants

to Creativity declined during the downsizing, but appeared to rebound as the

downsizing came to an end. The most dramatic declines were seen in challenge,

work group supports, and organizational encouragement—three of the dimen-

sions which, according to the previous study, carry the most weight in differenti-

ating between high and low creativity. Moreover, these same three dimensions

showed the weakest rebound by four months after the downsizing ended.

Although workload pressure remained unchanged during the downsizing, the

Environmental Obstacle of organizational impediments increased significantly;

however, this factor declined as the downsizing ended. Importantly, both cre-ativity and productivity (as assessed by KEYS declined during the downsizing;




downsizing. In addition, potentially longer-term effects on creativity were sug-

gested by a decline in the per-capita invention disclosures logged by the com-

pany's engineers during the downsizing. Invention disclosures are the first step

in patent applications and, in a company like High Tech Electronics, patents are

the lifeblood of its future innovative product streams.

Additional questionnaire and interview data collected as part of the

downsizing study allow some insight into mechanisms by which these negative

effeas might ha ve occurred. Surprisingly, the degree of actual downsizing th at

people experienced in their own department did not relate strongly to their per-

ceptions of the work environment or to reported work behaviors. However,

regardless of how much downsizing had gone on in their own department, peo-

ple were less creative and reported poorer work environments when the stability

of their own work-group had been disrupted. Moreover, the degree of nticip ted

downsizing strongly related to a large number of perceptions and behaviors. Themore downsizing that people expected in the coming m onths, the poorer the

work environm ent in the department, the lower the morale, and the less cre-

ative their approach to their work. However, even in those departments antici-

pating considerable downsizing, people responded more positively on all of these

dimensions when they felt that their own management was trustworthy, com-

mun icated honestly with them , and listened to their concerns.

The downsizing study suggests that, given th e potentially devastating

effects on surviving employees' motivation and creativity, managers should

attempt to avoid downsizing if possible. If that is not possible, they would dowell to carry it out in a timely fashion (thus reducing the negative effects of

anticipated downsizing), with good, clear, all-directional communication about

the reasons behind the action and the processes being used. Moreover, attention

should be paid to the stability of groups where a high level of creative productiv-

ity is desired. If those groups are disrupted by the dow nsizing, the new team s

might be helped by team-building interventions.

esearch Sum mary

On the basis of our two studies at High Tech Electronics International,

we now know that the work environment within an organization—which is

strongly influenced by ma nage me nt at all levels—can m ake the difference

between the production of new, useful ideas for innovative business growth and

the continu ance of old, progressively less useful routin es. We also kno w that

management actions that result in significant changes within the organization,

such as downsizing, can have dramatic and potentially long-lasting effects on

creativity.

These results, as wel as the results of man y other studies, have led to a

comprehensive Componential Theory of Creativity and Innovation in Organiza-

The aim of this theory is to adequately capture all of the major elem ents



Motivating C reativi ty in Organizations

theory is built on the foundation of the Componential Theory of Individual

Creativity and incorporates that theory.

Th e ompo nential Theory ofOrganizational reativity and Innovation

' Figure 2 presents a simplified schem atic diagram depicting the major

elements of the componential theory, integrating individual creativity with the

organizational work en vi ro nm en t. The thre e upper circles in the figure depict

the organizational components (features ofthe work environment) that are

considered necessary for innovation. The three lower circles in the figure depict

the components of individual creativity.

The central prediction of the theory is that elements of the work environ-ment will impact individuals' creativity (depiaed by the solid arrow). The theory

also proposes that the creativity produced by individuals and team s of individu-

als serves as a primary source for innov ation with in th e organization {depicted

by the dotted arrow). The most important feature of the theory is the assertion

that the social environment (the work environment) influences creativity by

influencing the individual components. Although the environment can have an

impact on any of the components, the impact on task motivation appears to be

the most immediate and direct. The three components of the organizational

work environment include all aspects investigated in the study of high- and low-

creativity projects at High Tech Electronics International, combined into concep-tually coherent categories.

Organizational Motivation to nnovate

This comp onent is made up of the basic orientation of the organization

toward innovation, as well as supports for creativity and innovation throughout

the organization. The orientation toward innovation must come, primarily, from

the highest levels of management, but lower levels can also be important in

communicating and interpreting that vision. In the studies at High Tech, this

component was manifested in differences on Organizational Encouragementand (in the negative direction) O rganizational Im pedim ents. On the basis of

these studies and work by other researchers, it appears that the most important

elements of the innovation orientation are: a value placed on creativity and

innovation in general, an orientation toward risk (versus an orientation toward

maintaining the status quo), a sense of pride in the organization's members and

enthusiasm about what they are capable of doing, and an offensive strategy of

taking the lead toward th e future (versus a defensive strategy of simply w anting

to protect the organization's past po sit io n) . The primary orga nization-wide

supports for innovation appear to be mechanisms for developing new ideas;

open, active communication of information and ideas; reward and recognition

for creative work; and fair evaluation of work—including work that might be




F I G U R E 2 Impact ofthe Organizational Environment on Creativity

ork nvironment Creativity Feed s A

Innovation

Organizational

Motivation

Individual/Teann

Creativity

vation includes the absence of several elements that can undermine creativity:

political problems and turf battles, destructive criticism and com petition with in

the organization, strict control by upper management, and an excess of formal

structures and procedures.'*'

esour es

This component includes everything that the organization has available

to aid work in the domain targeted for innovation. In the studies at High Tech, itwas manifested in differences on the Sufficient Resources scale and (in the nega-




of eleme nts: sufficient time for producing novel work in the dom ain, peo ple

with necessary expertise, funds allocated to this work domain, material

resources, systems and processes for work in the dom ain, relevant information,

and the availability of training.**^

anagem ent Practices

This component includes management at all levels, but most especially

the level of individual departments and projeas. ' In the High Tech studies, this

component was represented by the Challenging Work, Work Group Supports,

Supervisory Encouragement, and Freedom scales. Several earlier researchers and

theorists have suggested that creativity and innovation are fostered by allowing

a considerable degree of freedom or auto nom y in the c on du a of one's work* *

although, as noted, the high-low creativity study at High Tech did not provide

strong support for this assertion. Some earlier work has suggested the impor-tance of appropriately matching individuals to w ork assignm ents, on the basis of

both skills and interests, to maximize a sense of positive challenge in the work.'*'

Several aspects of project supervision a ppear to be importan t, starting w ith an

ability to clearly set overall project goals while allowing procedural autonomy.'*'^

In addition, project supervision is likely to foster creativity when it is marked by

clear planning and feedback, good communication between the supervisor and

the work group, and enthusiastic support for the work of individuals as well as

the e ntire gro up.' Finally, m anage me nt practices for creativity include the abil-

ity to constitute effeaive work groups that represent a diversity of skills, and aremade up of individuals who trust and communicate well with each other, chal-

lenge each other's ideas in constructive ways, are mutually supportive, and are

com mitted to the work they are doing. *

mplications for Management

The Componential Theory of Creativity, and the research that underlies

it, suggest a number of management implications concerning the motivation for

creativity in business and the effect of the work envirormient on thatmotivation.

• Because hu m an m otivation is so complex and so imp ortant, the success-

ful management of creativity for the next century must include manage-

ment education about the types of motivation, their sources, their effects

on performance, and their susceptibility to various work environment

influences.

• We cannot h ope to create a highly and approp riately creative workforce

simply by loading up the intrinsic and the extrinsic mo tivators in the

work environment, without paying attention to the typ of extrinsic moti-vators and the context in which they are presented.



Motivat ing Creat ivity in Organizat ions

• Because a positive sense of challenge in the work is one of the m ost

imp ortant predictors of creativity, it is imperative to match people to work

that utilizes their skills, stretches their skills, and is clearly valued by the

organization. As mu ch as possible, all work should be designed to ma xi-

mize intrinsically motivating aspects.

• Organizations mu st dem onstrate a strong orientation toward innova tion,

which is clearly co mm unicated and e nacted, from the highest levels of

management, throughout the organization.

• Organizations should orient themselves toward the genera tion, com-

munication, careful consideration, and development of new ideas. This

includes fair, constructive judgment of ideas, non-controlling reward and

recognition for creative work, mechanisms for developing new ideas, and

an aaive flow of ideas. It excludes turf battles, conservatism, and exces-

sively negative criticism of new ideas.

• Work groups should be cons tituted of diversely skilled individuals with a

shared intrinsic motivation for their work and a willingness to both share

and constructively criticize each other s ideas. These groups should be led

by supervisors who clearly set overall goals for projects but allow opera-

tional autonomy in achieving those goals. Performance feedback should

be highly informational and work-focused.

• People should be given at least adequ ate resources to carry out their

work, and at least minimally sufficient time to consider alternative

approaches.

Organizational leaders and managers must begin to think of human

motivation at work as a complex system where it s possible to achieve synergy

between persons and their work environments, and between the different types

of m otivation. The system is complex, but it is not u nkn ow able . We already

know much about how to nurtur e the motivation for creativity, and we are

learning more every day.

umm ryMaintaining your own creativity in your work depends on maintaining

your intrinsic motivation. This means two things. You should do what you love,

and you should love wha t you do . The first is a ma tter of finding w ork that

matches well with your expertise, your creative thinking skills, and your

strongest intrinsic motivation s. The second is a matte r of finding a work envi-

ronment that will allow you to retain that intrinsic motivational focus, while

supporting your exploration of new ideas.

Managers who learn these lessons will recruit for people who already

have that spark of passion for their work (as well as the requisite skills and expe-rience), but they will also nu rture that spark by creating a work environm ent




that downplays the obstacles and fosters the stimulants to creativity. Only then

will their organizations be poised to lead through innovation.

ot s

1. Going for th e Gaps. interv iew in The Stanford Magazine (Fall 1982), p. 42.

2. T.M. Am abile, The Social Psychology of C reativity (New York, NY: Springer Verlag,

1983) ; T.M. Amabile, Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity

(Boulder, CO: W estview Press, 1996 ).

3. J. Kap lan, Startup (New York, NY: Pen guin Books, 1994), p. 30.

4. Important ly , i t has been found tha t innovat io n within organizat ions has addi t ional

benefits aside from the creation of new products, services, and processes. In a

s tudy of 288 bank employees, the degree of innovat ion within a group was a

signif icant negat ive predictor of turn-over among employees in the group. M.

Mc Fadde n and E. Dem etr iou, The Role of Imm ediate Work Env iron me nt Factors

in the Turn over Process: A Systemic Interv ent ion , Applied Psychology: An Interna-

tional Review 42 (1993): 97-115. In a similar study of 314 nurses, job satisfaction

was significantly prediaed by innovation. S.E. Robinson, S.L. Roth, and L.L.

Bro wn , Mo rale and Job Satisfaction am on g Nurse s: Wh at Can Hospitals Do?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (1993): 2 4 4 - 2 5 1 .

5. T.M. Am abile, K.G. Hill , B.A. Henn essey, an d E. Tighe, The Work Preference

Inven tory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extr insic Motivat ional O rientat ions, Journal

of Personality a nd Social Psychology 66 (1994) : 950-967 .

6. A.E. Kah n, Joys and Sorrows: Reflections by Pablo Casals (New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster, 1970), p. 35.

7. T.M. Am abile, Growing Up Creative (New York, NY: Crown, 1989), p. 56.

8. A. Einstein , Auto biograp hy, in P. Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist

(Evanston, IL: Library of Living Philosophers, 1949), p. 18.

9. Ibid., p. 19.

10. See Am abile (1996 ), op. cit.

11. T.M. Am abile, B.A. Henn essey, and B.S. Gross man , Social Influences on Creativ-

ity: The Effects of Contracted-For Reward, ' Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychol-

ogy. 50 (1986): 14-23.

12 . T.M. Am abiie. Mo tivation and Creativity: Effects of M otivation al Orienta tion o n

Creat ive W riters , Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology 48 (1985) : 393-399 .

13. For exa mp le, F. Barro n, The Disposition tow ard Originality, Journal of Abnormal

an d Social Psychology 51 (1955): 47 8-48 5; F. Barron, Creativity a nd Personal Freedom

(New York, NY: Van No strand , 19 68.); D. W. M acK inno n, The Nature and Nur-ture of Creative Talent, American Psychologist 17 (1962): 484-4 95; D.W. M acKin-

no n, Personality and the Realization of Creative Poten tial, American Psychologist.

20 (1965): 2 7 3 - 2 8 1 .

14. T. Am abile, The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Co mp one ntia l Con ceptu aliza-

t ion, Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology 45 (1983b): 357-377; Amabile ,

(1983) op. cit.

15. A. Newell and H. Simo n, Human Problem Solving (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 1972), p. 82.

16. Termed creativity -relevan t skills in Am abile (1983 ), op. cit. , and creativity-

relev ant processes in Am abile (1996), op. cit .

17 . Barro n (1955 ), op. cit. ; D. Feld ma n, Beyond Universal in Cognitive Development(Norw ood, NJ: Ablex, 1 980); S. E. Gola nn, Psychological Study of Creativity,




(Chichester: Wiley, 1980); MacKinnon (1962), op. cit.; M. I. Stein, StimulatingCreativity, Vol. 1 (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1974).

18. A. Newell, J. Shaw, and H. Simon, The Processes of Creative Thinking, in H.Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer, eds.. Contemporary Approaches to Creative

Thinking (New York, NY: Atherton Press 1962.)19. W.W. Gordon, Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity New York, NY: Harper6-Row, 1961).

20. D. Campbell, Blind Variation and S elea ive Reten tion in Creative Thoug ht as inOther Knowledge Processes, Psychological Review, 67 (1960): 380-400; Hogarth,op . cit.

21 . H. Simon, Scientific Discovery and the Psychology of Problem Solving, in Mindand Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy (Pittsburgh, PA: Universityof Pittsburgh Press, 1966).

22. See, for exam ple, the work of S. Harter ( Effectance Motivation Reconsidered:Toward a Developmental Model, Human Development. 21 (1978): 34-64] and C.Dweck [ Motivational Processes Affeaing Learning, American Psychologist, 41(1986): 1040-1048].

23. See, for example, E.L. Ded, Effects of Extern ally Mediated Rew ards on IntrinsicMotivaxion, Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 8 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 1 0 5 - 1 1 5 ; M . R .

Lepper, D. Greene , and R. Nisbett, Unde rmining C hildren's Intrinsic Interest withExtrinsic Rewards: A Case of the Oveijustifi cation Hypothesis, Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology. 28 (1973): 129-137; M. R. Lepper and D. Greene, TheHidden Costs o f Reward (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 1978); E. L.Ded and R. M. Ryan, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior(New York, NY: Plenum, 1985).

24 . T.M. Amabile, Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsicand Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace, Human Resource Management Review, 3(1993): 185-201.

25. T.M. Am abile, R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M . Herron, Assessing th e WorkEnvironment for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1996): 1154-

1184; T.M. Amabile and S.S. Gryskiewicz, Creativity in the R D laboratory. TechnicalReport Num ber 30 (Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative L eadership, 1987); T.M.Amabile and N. Gryskiewicz, The Creative Environm ent Scales: The Work Envi-ronment Inventory, Creativity Research Joumal, 2 (1989): 231-254.

26 . D. Bem, Self-Perception Th eor y in L. Berkowitz, ed.. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology. Vol. 6 (New York, NY: Academ ic Press, 1972).

27 . Ded and Ryan (1985) Op. Cit..28 . Ibid.

29 . Am abileet al. (1996), op. cit.30 . T.M. Am abile, KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Greensboro, NC: Center for

Creative Leadership, 1995).31. KEYS was developed on the basis of several earlier studies of the work environ-

ment for creativity, in particular a critical-incidents study of 120 R&D scientists.Amabile and Gryskiewicz, op. cit.

32 . Am abileet al. (1996) op. cit.33 . A. Abbey and J.W. Dickson, R&D Work Climate and Innovation in Semiconduc-

tors, Academy of Management Joumal, 26 (1983): 362-368.34 . R.D. Russell and C.J. Russell, An Exam ination of the Effects of Organizational

Norms, Organizational Struaure, and Environmental Uncertainty on Entrepre-

neurial SiialegY' Journal of Management, 18 (1992): 839-856.35 . A.L. Delbecq and P.K. Mills, Managerial Practices That Enhance In nov ation,




36 . T.M. Amabile and R. Conti , 'W ha t Dow nsizing Does to Creat ivi ty , ' Issues a nd

Ofcservflrwns (G reen sbo ro, NC: Ce nte r for Creativ e Lead ersh ip) 15 |19 95 ): 1-6.

37 . T.M. Amabile , A Model of Creat ivity and Inno vat ion in Organizat ions, in B.

Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds . . Research in Organizational Behavior Vol. 10 (Green-

wich, CT: JA l Press, 1988).38. Ibid.

39. Am abile an d Gryskiewicz, op . cit.; L.L. Cu mm ings , Orga nization al Climates for

Creativity, Journal of the Academy of Management 3 (1965): 220-227; J . Hage and

R. Dewar, Elite Values Versus Org aniza tional Struc ture in Predicting Inn ov atio n,

Administrative Science. 18 (1973); 279-290; R. G. Havelock, Planning for Inn ovation

(Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Uni-

versity of Michigan, 1970); R.M. Kanter, The hange Masters (New York, NY: Simon

and Schuster, 1983 ); J. R. Kimberly, Ma nagerial Inno vat ion , in P.C. Nystrom

and W. H. Starbuck, eds.. Handbook of Organizational Design (Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1981); C. Orp en, M easu ring Sup port for Org anization al Inn ov atio n;

A Validity Study, Psychological Reports. 67 (199 0): 417 -41 8; S.M. Siegel and W.F.

Kaem mere r , Measu ring the Perceived Support for Innov at ion in Organiza t ions,

Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978) : 553-562 .

4 0 . Am abile and Gryskiewicz, op . cit.; S.J. Ashford and L.L. Cu mm ings , Pr oa aiv e

Feedback Seeking: The Instru me ntal Use of the Information Env iron me nt , Jour-

nal of Occupational Psychology 58 (1985): 67-80; Cummings, op. cit .; J .E. Ettlie,

'Organizat ional Pol icy and Innovat ion among Suppliers to the Food Processing

Sector, Academy of Management Journal 26 (1993): 27-44; Kanter, op. cit .; P.R.

Mo nge , M.D. Cozzens , and N.S . Cont racto r , 'Com mu nica t io n and Mot iva t iona l

Predictors of the Dynamics of Organizat ional Innovat ion. Organizational Science. 3

(1992) : 250 -27 4; J.G. Paolillo and V^.B. Bro wn , How Org anizatio nal Factors

Affect R&D Innovation, Research Management 21 (1978) :12-15 .

4 1 . Am abile and Gryskiewicz, op . cit .

4 2 . Ibid.

4 3 . This com pon ent was term ed skil ls in inno vat ion man ag em ent in the original

presentat ion of the model . Amabile (1988) , op. c i t . .

4 4 . Am abile and Gryskiewicz, op . cit.; F.M. An drew s and G.F. Farris, Sup ervisory

Practices and Innovation in Scientific Teams, Personnel Psychology (1967); G.

Ekvall, Climate Structure and Innovativeness of Organizations: A Theoretical Framework

and an E xperiment Report I , The Swedish Counci l for Management and Organiza-

tional Behavio ur, 1983; N. King and M.A . West, Expe riences of Inn ov atio n at

Work SAPU Me m o No. 77 2, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Englan d, 1985;

D.C. Pelz and F.M. Andrews, Scientists in Organizations {New York, NY: Wiley,

1966) ; Paolillo and Brown, op. cit .; Siegel and Kaemmerer, op. cit .; M.A. West,

Role Innovation in the World of Work Memo no. 670, MRC/ESRC Social and Applied

Psychology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, 1986.


4 6 . L. Baiiyn, A uto no m y in th e Indu strial R&D Labora tory, Human Resource Manage-

ment 24 (1985): 129-146.


4 8 . T.L. Alb rech t an d D.T. Hall, Facilitating Talk ab ou t New Idea s: The Role of Per-

sonal Relat ionships in Organizat ional Innovat ion, Comm unication Monographs 58

(1991) : 273-288; Amabile and Gryskiewicz, op. cit .; Ekvall, op. dt.; Monge et al.,

op . cit.



Documents

Motivating Creativity.pdf