INTERACTIONIST MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY

Mehmood ul Hassan

Institute of Administrative Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

[email protected]

Saad Ghafoor (Corresponding Author)

Institute of Administrative Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

[email protected]

Nauman Aslam

Institute of Administrative Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

[email protected]

Toqeer Ashraf

Institute of Administrative Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

[email protected]

Munaza Amin

Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

[email protected]
 INTERACTIONIST MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY

Mehmood ul Hassan, Saad Ghafoor, Nauman Aslam, Hafiz Imran Younus, Munaza Amin

Abstract: The paper examines theoretical framework for understanding creativity in complex social

settings. The paper defines organizational creativity as the creation of a valuable, useful new product,

service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system. The

focus of the paper is on the interactionist model of creative behavior. This model and supporting

literature on creative behavior and organizational innovation have been used to develop an interactional

framework for organizational creativity. The paper dilates upon individual, group and organizational

creativity and provides how these levels of creativity interact with each other and add to overall

organizational performance.

Keywords: Creativity, motivation, Social group, Personality factors

1. Introduction: In the field of organizational change and innovation, the organizational

creativity is relatively a new concept. Organizational creativity is primarily concerned with

creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by people

working together in a complex social setting. Generally, it is an accepted definition of creative

behavior, or the outcome of such behavior within an organizational context (Arieti, 1976;

Golann, 1963). In fact, the definition of organizational creativity is considered as a subset of the

broader domain of innovation in the organization. Innovation is further characterized to be a

subset of an even broader construct of organizational change. It is true that organizational change

can be included among innovation, yet not every organizational change is an innovation.

Although, creativity may produce the new product, service, idea, or process implemented
through innovation; innovation may also include adaptation of existing products or processes, or

those created in the external environment of the organization (Amabile et al., 1996).

It is believed that the organizational studies can take benefit of a systematic investigation

of creative behavior in complex social settings. Individuals and organizations creativity — doing

something for the first time or creating a new knowledge — is a reflection of an important

dimension of organizational change that may enable us to understanding nature of change

process and its implication for ultimate organizational effectiveness and survival in the face of a

very competitive environment. It is important to take note that the exploration of organizational

creativity may serve as a lynchpin to connect diverse literatures and research traditions,

particularly behavioral research on individual creativity and organizational research on

innovation process. There lies wisdom in bringing these research streams together (West and

Altanik, 1996).

In order to have an understanding of organizational creativity understanding of following

aspects is important (a) the creative process, (b) the creative product, (c) the creative person, (d)

the creative situation, and (e) the way in which each of these components interacts with the

others (Harrington, 1990). The theory presented in this article discuss the interactional

psychological perspective and its bearing on the integration of process, product, person, and

situation into a more comprehensive theory of organizational creativity. The interactionist

perspective provides a strong ground for explaining human behavior in complex social context.

2. An Interactionist Perspective on Creativity: Woodman (1993) has proposed an

interactionist model of creative behavior at individual level. They describe the creativity as the

complex product of a person's behavior in a given situation. The situation is characterized in

terms of the contextual and social influences that either facilitate or inhibit creative potential and

its realization. We all are influenced by various antecedent conditions, and these influences have

bearings on both cognitive abilities and non-cognitive traits or predispositions. We may also call

them individual biases embedded deep in our conscious. This interactionist model provides an

integrating framework that combines important elements of the personality, cognitive and social

psychology explanations of creativity (Kohlenberg et al., 1993).

This model provides a conceptual overlay for the interactionist perspective on

organizational creativity. This model essentially extends the Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989)

model of creative behavior into a social setting. The creative behavior of organizational

participants is a complex and delicate person-situation interaction influenced by the historical

events as well as salient features of the current situation. Within the person, both cognitive, take

for example, knowledge, cognitive skills, and cognitive styles/preferences and non-cognitive like

personality aspects of the mind are related to creativity and creative behavior. Tersely stated,

individual creativity is a function of antecedent conditions such as past reinforcement history,

biographical variables, cognitive style and ability to think divergently, ideational fluency,

personality factors like self-esteem, locus of control, relevant knowledge, motivation, social

influences, for example, social facilitation, social rewards, and contextual influences like

physical environment, task and time constraints. The mode is based on the assumption that

behavior is a complex interaction of person and situation, which is repeated at each level of

social organization. It means that group creativity is a function of individual creative behavior.

While, organizational creativity is a function of the creative outputs of its component groups and

contextual influences, take for example organizational culture, reward systems, resource

constraints, the larger environment outside the system, and so on. The pinnacle of creative output
for the entire system takes roots from the complex mosaic of individual, group, and

organizational characteristics and behaviors occurring within the salient situational influences,

both creativity constraining and enhancing, existing at each level of social organization.

The interactionist perspective describes the behavior of an organism at any point in time

as a complex interaction of the situation and the nature of the organism itself. As such, there are

three actors: (a) situation, (b) organism and (d) relationship that facilitate interaction between the

situation and the organism. Comprehensive description of these factors is required to be

furnished to fully understand the organism-in-its-environment and interaction between them.

Sometimes the contingencies of the current situation account for or can be said to explain the

greater part of current behavior; sometimes the nature of the organism explains a great deal;

sometimes both plus their reciprocal influences are necessary to even begin to understand what is

going on. From an interactionist position there is always something more to understanding

behavior than just describing the observed behavior per se. This conception of understanding of

social phenomena is related to Max Weber’s concept of verstehen. The verstehen simply states

that social phenomena cannot be truly understood by a mere observation of an events; rather

complete understanding of social phenomena calls for an understanding of its causes and

antecedent conditions. As a matter of fact, this relationship between the individual and its

environment contains the essence of the organism and its behavioral potentiality.

It is worth taking note that an interactionist model of organizational creativity has the

ability to address influences across various levels of analysis. These cross-level influences are

represented by the social influence and contextual influence. It is argued that these cross-level

influences are particularly important in identifying and understanding group and organizational
characteristics that both enhance and inhibit creative behavior in complex social systems and

across contexts.

In the following sections, the interactionist perspective has been kept in view to organize

diverse literature and streams of research that focus on (a) individual creativity, (b) group

creativity, and (c) organizational creativity. It is pertinent to mention that in none of these three

areas the literature review is not exhaustive; rather it is only illustrative to capture potentially

important variables and their relationships. Indeed, hundreds of pages would be required in each

of these areas to give and exhaustive review of the extant literature on each of these three areas.

3. Individual Creativity
3.1 Antecedent Conditions: Eugenics movement of nineteenth century argued that human

behavior is a function of human genes; as such it is among the heredity characteristics of

individuals (Gordon, 2002). Therefore, much of the early research on creativity was

characterized by catalogs of biographical and historical information on eminent creators. Galton's

(1869) – cousin of Darwin – in his book Hereditary Genius established the prototype for the

historiometric approach. That work was followed by studies which attempted to catalog the

biographical backgrounds of great creators. Methodological developments by Simonton (1976)

helped to advance this approach. He analyzed 50 biographical characteristics of 315 eminent

individuals cataloged and the results suggested specific sets of biographical variables that had

differential associations with creative achievement depending on the area of achievement.

Research on the biographies of eminent creators led to several attempts to develop empirically

keyed biographical inventories to predict creativity (Schaefer & Anastasi, 1968). However, the

attempts at empirically keying these measures result in factorial complexity that makes
theoretical interpretation of the relationships between background data and creativity virtually

impossible, and different keys must be constructed for different types of creativity.

Gatzel & Jackson (1962) demonstrated that personality data interact with biographical

data to predict creativity. Thus, further work on the development of biographical inventories may

prove useful from the standpoint of clarifying gaps in knowledge about situational presses and

differential reaction to situational factors. In terms of an interactionist model, antecedent

conditions influence the personality and cognitive characteristics of the individual, and to some

extent they probably determine the current situation in which the individual finds himself or

herself.

3.2 Personality Factors: The search for personality correlates of creativity has provided a

diverse set of findings, depending in part on the specific field in which creativity is investigated

(Barron & Harrington, 1981). A core of personality traits that are reasonably stable across fields

has emerged from divergent areas. These traits include "high valuation of esthetic qualities in

experience, broad interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judgment,

autonomy, intuition, self-confidence, ability to resolve antinomies or to accommodate apparently

opposite or conflicting traits in one's self-concept, and a firm sense of self as creative" (Barron &

Harrington, 1981, p. 453). Amabile (1996) reported that traits of persistence, curiosity, energy,

and intellectual honesty were consistently identified by R&D scientists as being important for

creativity. In addition, a number of studies have shown that highly creative people tend to have

an internal locus of control (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989). There is a general agreement

among the researchers that personality is related to creativity, attempts to develop a personality

inventory predictive of creative accomplishment in organizations are no more likely to be useful

than were early trait theory approaches to explaining leadership (Dorfman et al., 2008)
3.3 Cognitive Factors: A number of cognitive abilities have been identified through various

researches that relate to creativity. Carrol & Teo (1996) found eight first-order factors that all

loaded highly on a second-order factor of idea production: associative fluency, fluency of

expression, figural fluency, ideational fluency, speech fluency, word fluency, practical ideational

fluency, and originality. In addition, field dependence also has been related to creativity. People

with high field independence are able to analyze the relevant aspects of the situation without

being distracted by the irrelevant aspects, whereas field-dependent people have difficulty

separating less important aspects. Runco (1992), in his work on the structure of intelligence, has

identified the cognitive processes of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration as essential

to divergent production.

It has long been considered that divergent production is a cognitive key to creativity and

has continued to be a major factor in creativity research. Basadur, et al., (1982) postulated a

sequential application of ideation (divergent thinking) and convergent thinking through the

stages of problem finding, solution generation, and solution implementation. Thus, for a creative

person to produce socially useful products, his or her divergent thinking must come hand in hand

with convergent thinking. They demonstrated empirically that training organizational members

in creative thinking caused positive improvements in attitudes associated with divergent

thinking. If such training-induced shifts in cognitive skills (e.g., divergent thinking) and attitudes

toward the use of such skills (i.e., cognitive styles) can be convincingly linked to creative

outcomes, this connection will have important implications for organizations.

Hogarth (1987) suggested that much of creativity involves generating explanations or

determining causes. Hogarth (1987) discussed four components of causal reasoning that are

relevant to creativity: (a) a causal field which provides the context in which judgments are made,
(b) cues-to-causality, which are imperfect indicators of the presence or absence of causal

relations, (c) judgmental strategies for combining the field and cues in the assessment of cause,

and (d) the role of alternative explanations. Note that two of these four components are

contextual (i.e., causal field and cues-to-causality), whereas two are cognitive (i.e., judgmental

strategies and generation of alternative causal explanations). Hogarth (1987) observed that the

order brought to bear on the masses of information confronted by individuals through causal

reasoning is bought at the cost of being able to perceive alternative problem formulations.

Sawyer (1990) demonstrated that uncertainty in causal relations brought about through

contextual ambiguity and low predictability will lead people to follow status quo resource

allocation strategies, even when those strategies are clearly suboptimal. However, in subsequent

work, contextual ambiguity appeared to free people to explore alternative causal relationships.

The forces of causal reasoning that serve to restrict our attention may result either from inside the

individual (through field dependence) or from the social context that narrowly defines the causal

field, restricts the available cues-to-causality, rigidly defines acceptable judgmental strategies,

provides negative sanctions for failure, or guards against the consideration of alternative

explanations.

3.4 Intrinsic Motivation: An intrinsic motivational orientation has been postulated by

many researchers as a key element in creativity (Vroom et al., 1970). He argued that the primary

function of motivation was the control of attention. Indeed, much current research on motivation

in industry has focused on attentional self-regulation (Kanfer, 1990), and these authors have

suggested that goals influence motivation through their impact on self-regulatory mechanisms.

Motivational interventions such as evaluations and reward systems may adversely affect intrinsic

motivation toward a creative task because they redirect attention away from the heuristic aspects
of the creative task and toward the technical or rule-bound aspects of task performance. A

person's extrinsic reward interacts with his or her choice. Monetary reward given for

performance on a task for which the individual has no choice can enhance creativity, but when

the individual is offered a reward for consenting to perform the task, creativity may actually be

undermined. Amabile (1983) also found that the choice regarding how to perform a task can

enhance a person's intrinsic interest and creativity.

3.4 Knowledge: It is also worth taking note that knowledge and expertise play an important

role in the ability of the individual to be creative. Both "domain-relevant skills" and "creativity-

relevant skills" have been identified as being important for creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2003).

These two categories include: the knowledge, technical skills, and talent needed to produce

creative products; while, the cognitive skills and personality traits are linked for creative

performance. While exploring relationships between memory and creativity, Stein (1989)

identified both positive and negative effects the previous experience and learning had on

creativity. Even though previous experience or knowledge could lead to a "functional fixedness"

that prevents individuals from producing creative solutions, on balance it is hard to conceive of

any creative behavior that is somehow "knowledge free." This finding has been so widely

recognized for so long that the crucial role played by knowledge and information may sometimes

be overlooked.

4. Creativity in Groups: Closely aligned with Durkheim’s approach of conscience

collective, most observers are likely to agree that individual creativity can be influenced by

social processes. However, research on creativity in social settings has taken a back seat to

research on individual differences and antecedent conditions. Amabile (1983), while introducing

a social psychological theory of creativity, noted that there were very few experimental social
psychology articles on creativity in social psychology journals. On the other hand, she noted that

there exists considerable informal evidence that social-psychological factors have a significant

impact on the creativity and productivity of outstanding individuals (Amabile, 1983).

Particularly, she argued that (a) creative performance may be inhibited when others are present

in an evaluative capacity, (b) exposure to creative models may have a positive impact on early

creative achievement, and (c) models can improve a person's performance on creativity tests, but

only if the modeled behavior is very similar to the performance assessed (Amabile, 1983).

4.1 Conditions for Group Creativity: The existing literature suggests a number of group

compositions, group characteristics, and group process factors that are related to creative

outcomes in work groups and research teams. For instance, Jaussi & Dionne (1990) listed

leadership, cohesiveness, group longevity, group composition, and group structure as antecedents

of group creativity and innovation. To briefly summarize, the probability of creative outcomes

may be highest when leadership is democratic and collaborative, structure is organic rather than

mechanistic, and groups are composed of individuals drawn from diverse fields or functional

backgrounds. Group cohesiveness and longevity represent group characteristics whose

relationship to creativity, though seemingly important, is problematic. Some evidence suggests a

curvilinear relationship between group cohesiveness and creative performance (Nystrom, 1979).

In one of the more definitive empirical studies in this arena, Reagen & Zuckerman (2001)

presented evidence that group diversity explained ten percent of the variance in scientific

recognition, effectiveness, and publication records of R&D teams. There is considerable

evidence that group composition and characteristics also influence important aspects of group

process, such as how the group approaches solving problems and thereby linking problem-

solving processes to group creativity.

4.2 Group Process and Problem Solving: Various aspects of the process and interactions

among members of a task group may place similar restraints on how the task is approached or on

group members' attention to heuristic aspects of the task. Group problem- solving techniques,

such as brainstorming, were developed with the belief that rules or norms that restrain evaluation

of ideas being generated would allow members to build off of others' ideas and would result in a

greater number of novel ideas being generated. Stein (1974) has provided overwhelming

evidence that individuals produce fewer ideas in such groups. Basically, the group constitutes the

social context in which the creative behavior occurs. Hackman and Oldham (1976) offered a

useful framework for analyzing the group-interaction process. They proposed three summary

variables that can explain group effects on group task performance. Their taxonomy can readily

be applied to an interactionist model of creativity. Hackman and Oldham (1976) postulated that

group performance is reduced due to processes, coordination, or motivational losses. Process

losses result from errors in task performance strategies. Coordination and motivational losses can

result from poor integration of group members' efforts or from reward systems that reinforce

inappropriate behavior. On the other hand, motivational gains can occur from social facilitation

or production pressure coming from other members.

4.3 Social Information: Group members besides providing useful knowledge to apply to

the group problem solving, groups provide a platform where members can use others as

resources to augment their own knowledge. Resultantly, the member does not just add to his own

knowledge but uses others' knowledge to stimulate the usefulness of his or her own skills.

Beyond knowledge as a type of information that is shared in groups, other types of information

available in the work context will affect individuals and group in shaping their work processes

and outcome thereof. The role of social information in the workplace is now well documented
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Social information has been shown to influence a variety of

individual perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. There are sound arguments that can

be made regarding the potential impact of social information on, and in interaction with, creative

processes in organizations.

5. Creativity in Organizations

5.1 Creativity Training: In organizational creativity much of the work has been done to

explore the match between individual cognitive styles and organizational contexts or the training

of creative problem-solving approaches. Hist (2009) suggested that organizations may attract and

select persons with matching cognitive styles. Organizational culture, as well as other aspects of

the organization, may be difficult to change because people who are attracted by the old

organization may be resistant to accepting new cognitive styles. When a change is forced, those

persons attracted by the old organization may leave because they no longer match the newly

accepted cognitive style. Among other things, this culture-cognitive style match suggests that

organizational conditions (including training programs) supportive of creativity will be effective

only to the extent that potential and current organizational members know of and prefer these

conditions.

Basadur, (1986) in their work in training positive attitudes toward divergent thinking

among manufacturing engineers, found that training of work groups promoted far superior

transfer of training over training of individuals, presumably because of the establishment of

social support for divergent thinking among the work group. It has been argued that creativity

training for organizational strategic planners yields good results (Osborn & Mumford, 2006).

Their argument is based on the observation that the strategic planning process is characterized by
high uncertainty, which places a premium on people's imaginative attempts to reframe old issues

and explore new ideas. Thus, they reason, the improvement of creativity and problem-solving

skills would improve the strategic planning process in organizations. Researches show that the

availability of training on creativity could be regarded as part of the contextual influences that

establish or encourage an organizational culture supportive of creative behavior. However, it is

noticed that writing about creativity in organizations has a relatively narrow training focus which

should be broaden to understand conditions that encourage and inhibit creative behavior by

individuals and groups in the work setting.

5.2 Conditions for Organizational Creativity: Use of creativity by organizational

scientists as a major explanatory variable in understanding organizations is relatively a recent

phenomena (Zhou & Shalley, 2007). The vast majority of organizational-level research that is

relevant here has focused on organizational innovation in a broader sense, including its

implementation phases and the adaptation of products or ideas developed outside the system.

Fortunately, constructs and models used to study innovation can facilitate research on creativity

(Staw, 1990). For example, studies relating organizational policy, structure, and climate to

overall organizational or R&D work group innovations provide some insight into the question of

specific organizational variables that may have an impact on creativity or be influenced by it.

It has been observed that using ratings by employees of the overall innovation of their

own R&D laboratories, found positive correlations for innovation with autonomy, information

flow, creativity, rewards, and training (Carpenter, 2001). They also found that the number of

formal supervisory levels and the number of R&D employees were negatively correlated with

innovation, whereas the size of the research project teams (ranging from 2 to 5 in their sample)

were positively correlated with innovation. Abbey and Dickson (1983) found that performance
reward dependency, flexibility, and perceived innovativeness on the part of R&D employees

were positively related to the number of innovations initiated, adopted and implemented. Level

of rewards and achievement motivation were also positively related to the number of innovations

initiated but not the number of innovations adopted or implemented. A number of cross-level

links are suggested by the work of Abbey and Dickson (1983) as well as by numerous other

studies.

Leadership was also postulated to have an impact on innovation (Barsh et al., 2008). Katz

and Allen (1985) studied the relationship between project performance and the relative

dominance of project and functional managers in matrix-managed project teams. They found that

appropriate separation of roles between project and functional managers in R&D matrix

structures promoted overall R&D productivity. Appropriate roles for project managers include

influence in the larger organization, interaction with other components of the organization, and

the acquiring of critical resources. Functional managers are responsible for the control of

decisions related to the technical content of the project. Their results suggest that although the

functional manager has knowledge about the technical expertise of personnel and can make

appropriate assignments, control over rewards for performance is either best held by the project

manager or shared between the project and functional manager. This last point has implications

for risk taking. Even though new developments may appear to be violations of the current state

of technical knowledge, they also may lead to valuable new product developments. A reasonable

conjecture is that when functional managers control rewards, engineers fear that non-routine

behavior will be evaluated negatively by these managers. However, when project managers

control rewards, the overall outcome is evaluated regardless of the means used to accomplish the
task. Engineers may therefore feel freer to experiment with innovative ideas to reach project

goals when project managers control rewards or when this control is shared by project and

functional managers.

Allen, Lee, and Tushman (1980) studied the interaction of locus of communication and

project type on overall technical performance of R&D work groups. Technical service projects

were found to have significantly more intra-organizational communication than research and

development projects. Additionally, there was greater variability in the amount of intra-

organizational communication among members of research project teams than among technical

service project teams. Allen and his colleagues (1980) found that overall technical performance

of engineers working on developing new products or processes obtained greater benefit from

technical communication within the lab than engineers who worked on other projects. Also,

development projects were enhanced by having all members communicate equally with other

parts of the organization. Other types of projects were not influenced by intra-organizational

communication. There were no differences in total amount of intra-project communication across

types of projects, but research projects were harmed by a large variability across project

participants in intra-project communication.

6. Conclusion: Having discussed three levels of creativity in organizational settings: (a)

individual creativity, (b) group creativity and (c) organizational creativity, our interactionist

perspective of creativity states that individual creativity is a function of antecedent conditions,

cognitive styles and abilities, personality, motivational factors, and knowledge. These individual

factors both are influenced by and influence social and contextual factors. The group in which

individual creativity occurs establishes the immediate social influences on individual creativity.

Individual creativity, in turn, contributes to creativity in groups.

 On the other hand, group creativity is not the simple aggregate of all group members'

creativity, although group creativity is clearly a function of the creativity of individuals in the

group. In addition, group creativity is influenced by group composition, group characteristics,

and group processes, and contextual influences stemming from the organization. Our discussion,

throughout this paper remained focused on formal groups. Formal groups have been chosen

because most researchers have investigated creativity in such groups. It is suggested that similar

processes occur in informal groups. One might reasonably argue that creative individuals may

champion new ideas within an organization and thus have a direct effect on the creativity of the

organization. However, the social and contextual influences of the informal group may have

effects on the individual in ways similar to those of formal groups. It is hard to conceive of an

individual working within a complex social system totally without the influence of the informal

group. It is also noticed that individual creative behavior is mediated through the group to

influence organizational creativity. This mediational model may be conceived of either as the

informal influences of the social context on individual behavior or as the formal processes of

converting individual creative behavior into group behavior.

Discussion on organizational creativity boils down to the point that organizational characteristics

create the contextual influences that operates on both individuals and groups to influence their

creativity. Organizational creativity is then a function of group creativity and contextual

influences, including those which come from the environment.

References:-

1. Arieti, Silvano. "Creativity: The magic synthesis." (1976).

2. Golann, S. E. (1963). Psychological study of creativity. Psychological Bulletin,60(6), 548.

3. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
4. West, M. A., & Altink, W. M. (1996). Innovation at work: Individual, group, organizational,
and socio-historical perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5(1), 3-11.

5. Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective.

In Based on a colloquium," Toward a Psychology of Creative Environments: An Ecological
Perspective," presented at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of
California, Berkeley, Sep 1984.. Sage Publications, Inc.

6. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.

7. Kohlenberg, R. J., Hayes, S. C., & Tsai, M. (1993). Radical behavioral psychotherapy: Two
contemporary examples. Clinical Psychology Review,13(6), 579-592.

8. Gordon, H. S. (2002). The history and philosophy of social science. Routledge.

9. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. Macmillan and Company.

10. Simonton, D. K. (1976). Interdisciplinary and military determinants of scientific

productivity: A cross-lagged correlation analysis. Journal of vocational behavior, 9(1), 53-62.

11. SCHAEFER, C. E., & ANASTASI, A. (1968). A BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY FOR

IDENTIFYING CREATIVITY IN ADOLESCENT BOYS. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52(1p1), 42.

12. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted
students.

13. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality.Annual
review of psychology, 32(1), 439-476.

14. Dorfman, L., Martindale, C., Gassimova, V., & Vartanian, O. (2008). Creativity and speed of
information processing: A double dissociation involving elementary versus inhibitory cognitive
tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1382-1390.

15. Carroll, G. R., & Teo, A. C. (1996). Creative self-destruction among organizations: An
empirical study of technical innovation and organizational failure in the American automobile
industry, 1885–1981. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 619-644.

16. Runco, M. A. (1992). Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation.Developmental

Review, 12(3), 233-264.
17. Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving:
Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research
organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70.

18. Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision . John Wiley &
Sons.

19. Sawyer, E. (1990). Boundedness of classical operators on classical Lorentz spaces. Studia
Mathematica, 96(2), 145-158.

20. Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (Eds.). (1970). Management and motivation: selected readings.
London.: Penguin.

21. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational

psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1(2), 75-130.

22. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.

23. Stein, B. S. (1989). Memory and creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 163-176).
Springer US.

24. Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional
leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 475-498.

25. Nyström, H. (1979). Creativity and innovation. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

26. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social
capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization science,12(4), 502-517.

27. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.

28. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 224-253.

29. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.

30. Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1986). Training effects on attitudes toward
divergent thinking among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 612.

31. Osburn, H. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to
develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 173-190.
32. Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of organizational creativity. Taylor &
Francis.

33. Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and
policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton University Press.

34. Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in
semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 362-368.

35. Barsh, J., Capozzi, M. M., & Davidson, J. (2008). Leadership and innovation.McKinsey
Quarterly, 1, 36. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence
in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management journal, 28(1), 67-87.

37. Allen, T. J., Lee, D., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). R&D performance as a function of internal
communication, project management, and the nature of the work.Engineering Management,
IEEE Transactions on, (1), 2-12.