Creativity in the Workplace - the Impact of Physical Environment and Leadership - Research Proposal Example

Creativity in the Workplace: The Impact of Physical Environment and Leadership Put here. May 28, Though creativity is one of the most popular and oft discussed topics in the contemporary business climate, its actual definition is difficult to pinpoint. Furthermore, the understanding of how exactly to promote creativity in the workplace is difficult to achieve. The present literature review examines the description and definition of creativity, and looks at dimensions of workplace environment and leadership attributes as having the potential for enhancing worker creativity. The specific examples of Apple, Facebook, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are set forth, and a study of these businesses and their leaders is proposed. By examining the styles of highly creative leaders and their businesses, a better understanding of mechanisms influencing worker creativity can be accomplished. Introduction In recent years, the role of creativity in business processes has been examined and emphasized, with the aim of elucidating both the importance of creativity and the factors influencing it. Creativity in leadership, in teams, and in individual workers have all been identified as important components for innovation and success. Creativity is a complex, multi-dimensional concept that is not easily defined, and yet it clearly has a significant impact. The present study aims to examine specific qualities of creativity and the circumstances under which creativity can be manifested in the workplace. Many dimensions of creativity have been identified for their potential capacity to exert an impact in the realm of business. One of these dimensions is the physical environment. The offices and other spaces in which teams, individuals, and leaders work and interact can have an inhibitive or encouraging effect on creativity. Likewise, the dimension of leadership is one with potential for impacting creativity. Teams and individuals may enjoy greater or lesser creative success depending on the attributes of their leaders. The objective of the present research proposal is to examine creativity, delineate the various dimensions of creativity in the workplace, and question which aspects are of utmost importance in the business world. Specifically, the role of workplace environment attributes and leadership attributes will be the topics of focus in relationship to creativity. The research question formulated is: Which has greater impact on employee creativity: workplace environment or leader creativity? Answering this research question will be useful to science because it will impact the business world’s ability to appropriately and effectively take steps to encourage creativity in workers. By effectively and definitively answering this research question, businesses will be able to spend resources prudently on either leadership development or workplace environment. These improvements will encourage creativity, and this increase in creativity will result in greater innovation and therefore greater success. Literature Review Defining Creativity Creativity is a broad concept that has different meanings to each person that considers it. In the words of Teresa Amabile and Mukti Khaire, “creativity has always been at the heart of business, but until now it hasn’t been at the top of the management agenda” (2008, p. 101). Early trailblazers in the field of creativity research delineated the concept of creativity. Ned Herrmann’s influential research into creativity laid the foundation for further examination of the topic and its pertinence to the workplace (1981). Indeed, Herrmann was one of the forerunners in describing and defining creativity, and was instrumental in thrusting creativity into the popular vernacular of business dialogue. Herrmann was also the pioneer of cognitive science that popularized the “left-brain/right-brain” model of thinking and creativity (Herrmann 1981). In this scenario, the person whose thinking is predominantly left-brain excels at logical, analytical, and mathematic skills, while the right-brain thinker excels at ideas, intuition, music, the arts, and other creative endeavors (Herrmann 1981). Herrmann’s research also popularized the concept of the “whole-brain,” wherein a balanced approach is viewed as more desirable than favoring the right or left dominance (Herrmann 1981). Herrmann provided a new way for understanding creativity and a novel model for discussing its origin. Further description of creativity has also been achieved in many academic and psychological disciplines. One of the major figures in creativity and innovation research describes creativity as less of a mental process and more as a cultural, social, and psychological event (Csikszentmihalyi 1999). According to one, creativity can only be understood from within the context of a cultural system and in relationship to a society or sub-society (workplace) (Csikszentmihalyi 1999). Furthermore, the author asserts that focusing on individuals in the study of creativity is a mistake, and that research should instead look at the emergence of creativity within group settings (Csikszentmihalyi 1999). From this author’s research, it became clear that another dimension of creativity warranted study, and also that social settings had the capacity to impact the emergence of creativity. Furthermore, definitions are found in the academic literature of various disciplines, including the discipline of business. For the purposes of the present study, Amabile’s definition of creativity will be of primary importance: “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain” (1996). Amabile further describes that for a product or idea to be deemed creative, it must be different from what already exists and appropriate to the needs it was designed to meet or the problems it was intended to solve (1996). Amabile’s definition and description provide an appropriate and concentrated perspective from which a study of creativity in the business world can be conducted. Factors Affecting Creativity in the Workplace If creativity is a complex and multi-faceted entity, so too is its manifestation in the world of business. With its individual and social spaces, the environment of the workplace offers many opportunities for examining the varieties of creativity and the theories that have been developed for its description. The present literature review seeks to examine the following dimensions of creativity in the workplace: the work environment and leadership. Finally, factors in opposition to workplace creativity are discussed. The Work Environment Several studies have examined the physical work environment to see if various configurations have an encouraging or restricting effect on creativity. The 2011 study by Dul and Ceylan positions the discussion in the realm of ergonomics, a discipline that normal focuses on the healthful and safety enhancing qualities of work structures. Dul and Ceylan extend the ergonomic discussion to include the possibility for physical structures to impact innovation (2011). The authors assert that a worker’s ability to manifest novel ideas is dependent on the supportiveness of the work environment, and that a work environment that is designed with creativity in mind will better lead to worker creativity (Dul & Ceylan 2011). Their study showed that inspiring colours, new carpeting, images on the walls and wider workspaces were enhancing of creativity (Dul & Ceylan 2011). Notably, the authors also found that the same interventions that were encouraging of creativity were also those known to encourage mood, comfort, health, and safety (Dul & Ceylan 2011). In this way, the encouragement of creativity seems to be related to other positive physical interventions in the workplace environment. Other studies have looked specifically at employee perceptions of creative support as evident in work environment qualities (Stokols et al. 2002). One dimension identified was the social climate of the workplace, in that workers identified a positive social climate as related to support for creativity (Stokols et al. 2002). Another aspect of workplace environment that was identified as having a relationship with creativity was related to the level of environmental distraction the workers were subjected to (Stokols et al. 2002). These results point to the highly complex dynamics underlying the encouragement of creativity through environmental interventions. One study that got very specific in its examination of environmental qualities impacting creativity in the workplace was by McCoy and Evans (2002). Their study questioned whether specific dimensions would encourage creativity. Those dimensions included nature, since prior studies had suggested that nature may have a rejuvenating quality for creativity (McCoy & Evans 2002). Another dimension put forth in their study was called challenge, since studies have shown that challenging environments foster creativity (McCoy & Evans 2002). Freedom, described as an environmental attribute that encourages open mindedness and flexibility, was another characteristic of the study, as was support (McCoy & Evans 2002). Coherence was described by the authors as a feature of the workplace environment in which familiarity and spatial definition are evident, and threat was the dimension of awareness of pressure of evaluation (McCoy & Evans 2002). Finally, status quo in the environment was described as a condition that encourages sameness and uniformity instead of creativity and innovation (McCoy & Evans 2002). All of these aspects were examined in terms of their potential to impact creativity in the business environment. In this study, the authors hoped to determine which environments their subjects would perceive as most creative. The results of this study showed that spatial complexity, visual detail, view of natural environmental, use of natural material, and sociopetal furniture design (grouped to encourage social interaction) were influential for creative performance (McCoy & Evans 2002). The elements associated with low creativity included cool colors in the environment, no view of natural settings, and the use of manufactured or composite materials in the environment (McCoy & Evans, 2002). This study showed that even seemingly minor details in the workplace’s interior environment have the power to affect creativity in both positive and negative ways. Finally, the 1996 study of Amabile et al. uses the social contexts for creativity as a springboard for the examination of work environments. Here, the authors look at the bigger picture in which creativity emerges, rather than the individual context frequently favored in psychological studies. This study looked specifically at the manifestation of creativity amongst work teams (Amabile et al. 1996). The authors examined how the encouragement of creativity, autonomy, available resources, pressures, and organizational impediments to creativity might influence creativity (Amabile et al. 1996). They determined that the dimensions of challenge, organisational encouragement, work group supports, supervisory encouragement, and organisational impediments all play significant roles in influencing creative behavior in the workplace (Amabile et al. 1996). Their study concluded that the types of people hired (creative vs. non-creatives) were just as important as the types of work environment fostered for those people (Amabile et al. 1996). From this, one surmises that environments can both incubate and stifle creativity. Indeed, a quick look at the work environments at some of the most creative and innovative companies reveals a unique and groundbreaking design aesthetic. The headquarters of Apple, Inc. in Cupertino, California were forced to innovate based on the needs of employees (Markoff 1993). Computer programmers employed by the company complained that they couldn’t concentrate amid the perpetual interruptions of the cubicle environment, and started to work from home so they could get more work done (Markoff 1993). Apple knew that they were losing out on possible innovation and the creative stimulation that manifests in social circumstances, and so intervened (Markoff 1993). To encourage programmers to report to work, spaces were created to encourage privacy and concentration (Markoff 1993). On the other hand, spaces were also created to encourage socializing and informal meetings in wide open, common areas (Markoff 1993). Having a reputation as one of the most innovative and forward-thinking companies, it seems apparent that this careful thought into workplace environmental design has a role in worker productivity, satisfaction, and continued creativity. Another innovator with headquarters in California is Facebook, which (after a move from Palo Alto) calls Menlo Park its home. Facebook is also identified with creativity, innovation, and groundbreaking ideas. At the Facebook headquarters, there is an open workspace model without cubicles, and even the CEO Mark Zuckerberg sits in this open environment (Facebook 2011). The nine building Facebook campus features highly creative elements, including walls that encourage scribbling upon with chalk and a complete lack of private spaces like offices or cubicles (Facebook 2011). Glass surfaces are everywhere, including the walls of the conference rooms and the “breakaway” spaces, where workers can have impromptu and spontaneous meetings to share ideas and brainstorm problem solving techniques (Facebook 2011). Bright colors and artwork, including commissioned graffiti by well-known artists, are also seen all over the headquarters (Facebook 2011). Workers enjoy perks such as full-service cafeterias, coffee shops, a fitness center, free dry cleaning, and free snacks (Facebook 2011). It seems that Facebook’s attitude toward their workers has been a successful one and has resulted in high creativity. In conclusion, workplace characteristics including the design of an open floor plan, the physical characteristics of light, material, and color, and other design planning implementation are all impactful on worker creativity. Some of the world’s most successful and innovative companies, including Apple and Facebook, are housed in headquarters that are equally innovative and fostering of creativity. The achievement of an understanding of which characteristics of workplace design are most important to worker creativity will benefit businesses, as they enjoy the results of enhanced innovation and employee performance. Leadership The leadership styles evident in the business world are also relevant to an examination of worker creativity. Tierney, Farmer, and Graen’s study of leadership and employee creativity sought to examine and identify the role of the leader in encouraging employee creativity (1999). Their study showed that employees who were internally motivated toward creativity produced enhanced outputs when led by leaders with a similar disposition, while employees who lacked such motivation and were led by highly motivated creative produced reduced creative outputs (Tierney et al. 1999). Based on this study, it seems obvious that employees need to be matched well to their leaders for the best possible outcomes in terms of creativity. Zhang and Bartol also discern a link between leadership and employee creativity, and specifically look at how leadership can empower creativity (2010). They deem “empowering leadership” as an approach that is promising in the encouragement of employee creativity, and describe it as a mode of leading that relies on employee motivation for problem solving in an open and creative manner (Zhang and Bartol 2010). This study found that employees were more likely to manifest creativity when their leadership was able to communicate the value of that creativity (Zhang and Bartol 2010). Finally, the study also showed that employee creativity benefits when leaders are effective at demonstrating methods for encouraging creativity (Zhang and Bartol 2010). This study further delineated the dynamic relationship between employee creativity and leadership styles. Elsewhere, experts describe the encouragement of collaboration, the harvesting of ideas from diverse levels of the organization, and the encouragement of a culture of creativity as vital to a leader’s capacity to encourage creativity in workers (Amabile & Khaire 2008). These studies all show how multi-faceted the link between leadership and worker creativity really is. Research Strategy To effectively and comprehensively examine the question of workplace creativity and the environmental and leadership factors impacting it, a dual case study design will be incorporated. The dual case study will carefully examine the following: the environmental attributes of the Facebook headquarters and the leadership qualities of CEO and founder Mark Zuckerburg; and the environmental attributes of the Apple headquarters and the leadership qualities of former CEO and founder Steve Jobs. Biographical information on both leaders will be examined, compared, and contrasted to detect evidence of creativity, leadership style, and attitude toward encouraging worker creativity. Detailed information on the physical environment of each environment will also be collected to the extent that it is possible, since both locations are notoriously secretive. Sources of information will include print materials in the form of biographies, extant interviews with staff members and the leaders themselves, news pieces, photographs, and other descriptive materials. The intended result of this comparison is to delineate the characteristics of leadership and physical environment that encourage creativity in workers, and to possibly suggest whether leadership or environment is the more important variable. This study will incorporate an interpretivist philosophical position, which will permit the information gathered from the case study to be used to generate a theory of creativity in the workplace. Timescale (Gantt) Identify Data Compile Data Compose Research Edit and Proofread June 1-15 June 15-July 1 July 1-15 July 15-August 1 Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats There are several strengths and weaknesses associated with the proposed study. Strengths include: the ability to determine useful information for the business world and to discover relevant dimensions of creativity. Weaknesses may relate to the limited scope of the study, which is narrowed to only two businesses and leadership styles due to limitations of the researcher’s time and resources. Opportunities include the potential for delineating novel and possibly impactful data, and threats are represented by the limited availability of information about the individuals and businesses studied. Conclusion One of the strongest and most talked about forces in the contemporary business world, creativity is on the minds of every industry’s leaders. Whether leadership is the key to enhanced creativity or a purposefully designed work environment is the necessity remains to be understood. By examining two prominent business leaders and the environments in which they work, the proposed study will achieve the further description of these two significant dimensions in the study of creativity in the workplace. REFERENCES Amabile, TM, Conti, R, Coon, H, Lazenby, J, & Herron, M 1996, ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity,’ Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5, pp. 1154-1184. Amabile, TM, & Khaire, M 2008, ‘Creativity and the role of the leader’, Harvard Business Review, 86, 10, 100-109. Amabile, TM 1996 ‘Creativity and innovation in organisations’, Harvard Business School, note 9-396-239. Csikszentmihalyi, M 1999, ‘A systems perspective on creativity’, in R. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dul, J & Ceylan C 2011, ‘Work environments for employee creativity’, Ergonomics, 54, 1, pp. 12-20. Facebook 2011, ‘Our new Menlo Park home’, 19 December, viewed 28 May 2012, www.facebook.com. Herrmann, N 1981, ‘The creative brain’, Training and Development Journal, 35, 10, pp. 11-16, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 May 2012. Markoff, J 1993, ‘Where the cubicle is dead’, The New York Times, 25 April, p. 7. McCoy, JM, & Evans, GW 2002, ‘The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity’, Creativity Research Journal, 14, 3-4, pp. 409-426. Stokols, D, Clitheroe, C., & Zmuidzinas, M 2009, ‘Qualities of work environments that promote perceived support for creativity’, Creativity Research Journal, 14, 2, pp. 137-147. Tierney, P, Farmer, SM, & Graen, GB 1999, ‘An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships’, Personnel Psychology, 52, 3, pp. 591-620. Zhang, X, & Bartol, K 2010, ‘Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement’, Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1, pp. 107-128. Read More