Creativity in the Workplace - Literature review Example

University

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 The importance of creativity in the workplace.

2.1.1 Competition and survival

In a world where stiff competition is almost in every industry, creativity in the workplace has become a necessity. While everyone understands the essence of creativity, achieving it in a workforce is not easy. Often, a workforce’s productivity is significantly influenced by its level of creativity, meaning if it lacks innovation and creativity, the output will equally deteriorate (Torsvik, 2016). Many issues have been raised on why people lack creativity despite its importance. In places where workforces show some levels of creativity, the management is always concerned with how it could raise these levels. In the process, the executives and managers encounter various challenges.

Creativity is the only way for companies to remain competitive in a field where competition is stiff. Reiter-Palmoni (2011) argued that it is not just in a competitive field that companies ought to focus on creativity. Whenever firms fail to cultivate creativity, there is a high likelihood of being eclipsed and sent into oblivion by new entrants. The author argued that “creativity and innovation are necessary for organizational adaptation and survival” (p.2). There is no better example that proves these assertion to be factual than the case of Nokia. The firm dominated the mobile phone industry but its failure to cultivate creativity resulted in its oblivion. It moved from being a major player in the industry to a candidate of acquisition. In essence, creativity has the potential to help a firm compete with new entrants.

Creativity is essential in giving firms a competitive advantage. Reiter-Palmoni (2011) noted many companies that strive to maintain creativity gain an advantage that leads to innovation. Apparently, when firms embrace creativity, its workforce proceeds to become innovative that subsequently transforms the business. Conversely, when the need for creativity is consistently ignored, the eventual results have an adverse impact on the company. For instance, if Nokia had remained creative, its innovation levels would have remained strong. As a result, new products would have been developed hence remaining competitive. However, Nokia, unlike Apple, did not pursue creativity and ended up losing its dominance in the market share.

2.2 Why people lack creativity.

2.2.1 Lack of personal initiative

There are various reasons that impede human creativity. A workforce can lack creativity for varied reasons including lack of personal initiative. According to Runco and Abdullah (2014), people face many enigmatic situations that require creativity for solutions to be provided. If such an individual dislikes creativity it is likely that they will not resolve the situation. As a result, such individuals form a habit that is often replicated in the workplace. If a workforce comprises of such individuals, the results will not be different in an organization. Therefore, people lack creativity because they do not pursue it in their individual capacities, meaning there will be no difference in the workplace. In contrast, individuals that embrace creativity in their lives replicate the trend in the workplace. As a result, new trends, ideas, procedures, and processes are created hence increasing an organization’s productivity. Thus, a workforce will lack creativity if the individuals’ lives are not characterized by such traits.

2.2.2 Lack of knowledge-based systems and leadership

Additionally, a workforce can lack creativity if its systems are not knowledge-based. In every organization, the systems influence the levels of creativity a workforce adopts. An organization whose systems promote knowledge helps its workers to cultivate creativity since mediocrity is not allowed. Such systems compel workers to stretch and extend their work scopes, resulting in autonomy (D. Lee, K. Lee, Seo, & Choi, 2015). In contrast, organizations that do not have such systems encourage dullness and a lack of creativity, and employees’ productivity hardly increase. Even if workers in such organizations strived to become creative, they would not achieve significant success. In essence, people may lack creativity due to the lack of systems that knowledge in the workplace.

Leadership is equally imperative in ensuring that a workforce is creative without which a business inevitably suffers. A leader is not just an individual hired to issue orders. Rather, their roles include the motivation of the workforce, and offering leadership often leads to the increase of creativity. Lee et al., (2015) reported that considering the influence a leader has on the workforce, creativity can be encouraged depending on whether such leaders embrace it as a personal necessity. Conversely, if such leaders resent creativity, it is highly unlikely for them to motivate a workforce. In short, a workforce can lack creativity if its leader neither promotes it nor pursues it personally. Since leaders are expected to set a culture in an organization, their input with regard to creativity is vital in determining if workers will become creativity.

Also, knowledge-sharing has been found to be crucial in initiating and promoting creativity in the workplace. Lee et al., (2015) reported that knowledge-sharing occurs when individuals with crucial knowledge commit to sharing it with the rest of the workforce so as to benefit the organization. Shared knowledge helps creativity since individuals enthusiastically seek new ways of improving the systems or trends. However, the workers’ ability and willingness to share the knowledge is significantly influenced by a host of other factors. Some of the factors include incentive systems, organizational climate, motivations, and costs and benefits. Also, the period that a team has worked together influences how the knowledge is shared. Typically, if the teams have been together for a long time, it is likely that the sharing of information will be somewhat easy due to high levels of cohesiveness. In the absence of knowledge-sharing, a workforce will inevitably lack the much-needed creativity.

2.2.3: lack of self-leadership and poor working environment

In organizations where self-leadership is not practiced, creativity levels are low. Ghosh (2015) found that there was a strong connection between self-leadership and creativity. Self-leadership refers to a person’s understanding of their value, influence over emotions and behavior, and abilities. Upon knowing their abilities and strengths, workers proceed to undertake new activities without a need for supervision. People need not be appointed leaders to influence others in a workplace; self-leadership inevitably leads to influencing others. If all workers cultivate their self-leadership traits, creativity occurs even without much intervention from the management. However, if employees fail to exhibit self-leadership, creativity will not occur easily since the workers will not know their strengths and abilities that could transform the organization.

Also, the organization climate plays a critical role in determining if a workforce is creative or not. If an organization’s working environment is not favorable to employees, it is unlikely that creativity will be cultivated. According to Ghosh (2015), the workplace environment impacts creativity when workers are encouraged to take own initiative tackling various issues. In the end, the workers develop new ways of approaching issues that ultimately leads to innovation. In places where the environment is not conducive, creativity is adversely affected. Therefore, creativity can be hindered by the organization’s environment.

2.2.4 Organizational culture and structural design

In addition to the factors mentioned above, organizational culture, coupled with the resistance to change has been mentioned as a hindrance to creativity. Apparently, in organizations where creativity culture is not popularized mainly by its leaders, employees do not see the need to pursue it (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2011). In such organizations, employees just follow what their leaders seem to portray. That is to say, employees fail to cultivate creativity because the same is not evidenced in their leaders. Typically, a negative organization culture thrives where change is resisted. Ude and Diala (2015) asserted that organizational change is essential in the advancement of change without which mediocrity is bred. To enhance creativity, therefore, organizations have to embrace organization change that is meant to destroy any culture whose impact to the business is adverse.

Further, the organizational structural design has an impact on how creativity is achieved in every corporation. An effective organizational structure ought to have a clear guideline on task allocation, subsequent coordination, and supervision of activities meant to achieve the overall organization’s objectives. The structural design affects workers when it comes to supervision and task-allocation. Employees that have to report to more than one supervisor end up being lacking the motivation needed to carry out their work hence affecting the commitment (Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2013). Similarly, task-allocation ought to be done as per the employee’s strengths. Apparently, creativity is often hindered by a supervisor’s inability to allocate relevant tasks to employees as informed by their strengths.

2.2.5 Creative consciousness and ability differences

Moreover, a workforce’s creativity will be influenced by its creative consciousness. Being aware of humans’ ability to be creative helps firms to exploit the creativity necessary for its progress. Gaynor (2013) argued that creativity is the driver human progress in every endeavor. An organization whose workers practice creativity thrives in endless innovation that ultimately drives change and progress. In other words, progress cannot be witnessed in a place where creativity is not embraced. For creativity to be embraced, a population, in this case the workforce, has to be aware of its power of creative thinking; it needs to become creative-conscious. Clearly, Nokia failed to be creative-conscious since no new products were developed despite evidence that newcomers presented fierce competition. Sometimes, therefore, people lack creativity as they lack the essential creativity consciousness.

Then there is also the issue of ability differences whereby an individual’s ability impacts creativity. For a long time, there has been a raging debate on whether the lack of creativity is genetic or environmental. Overwhelming evidence seems to support that creativity is immensely affected by environment more than by genes. Gaynor (2013) argued that people that associate with creative individuals tend to develop similar traits in the long-run. Conversely, people whose authority figures are not creative, hardly exhibit different results. However, it is worth noting that people exhibit creativity in different ways, and a deficiency in one area is not an indication that such individuals are not entirely creative. In short, people may seem to lack creativity if their ability does not correspond to the present situation. However, if such people work under other individuals with varied strengths, it is possible for them to improve significantly.

2.3 Increasing creativity in the workplace

2.3.1 Using EMA and Intrinsic motivations

Considering the importance of creativity, many organizations have devised many ways to boost it. In a survey conducted on a large scale of workers that used the enterprise mobile applications (EMA), some interesting facts were reported. Apparently, the EMA had an impact on workers’ job performance and creativity. Workers that used EMA had their creativity levels increase rapidly even when used for non-task activities. Similarly, those who used it for task-related activities witnessed equal results (Chung, Lee, & Choi, 2015). From this research, it is evident that one of the ways in which creativity increases is through the use of EMA. Therefore, managers and other executives ought to encourage the use of these tactics to ensure workers become more creative.

Also, creativity can be increased by encouraging intrinsically motivated activities. Often, companies make a mistake of evaluating employees’ performance solely for highlighting the workers’ shortcomings. Consequently, the morale of such workers deteriorates significantly and results in the lack of creativity. To boost creativity, Gaynor (2013) argued that managers ought to encourage employees to work in areas where their innate attributes come out easily. As a result, employees do not struggle to complete tasks since they are internally motivated even if the task has challenges. Earlier, it was noted that allocating workers duties that require different attributes from the ones a worker has, creates a friction.

2.3.2. Civility and persistence

Creativity in the workplace can be furthered by ensuring there is no incivility. Hur, Moon, and Jun (2016) noted that emotional exhaustion plays a crucial role in deteriorating an employee’s capacity to become creative. Apparently, when an employee endures incivility constantly, particularly emotional exhaustion, even their intrinsic motivation dwindles down. In other words, even what the workers can innately perform well is hampered by the environment. Subsequently, such employees’ creativity levels, inadvertently, lowers hence affecting the entire organization; especially if a large number of workers endure such an environment. Therefore, organizations ought to ensure the workplace is devoid of incivility if creativity levels are to increase.

Insisting and persisting on creativity as an integral part of business that is communicated to all stakeholders- particularly the employees- is equally imperative. Gaynor (2013) argued that for creativity to be realized in an organization, the top management has to ensure that all stakeholders commit to it. Nothing confirms the authenticity of the above assertion than the case of Tesla Motors. The company- a US automotive firm- gained a widespread attention in 2012 when it produced an electric car. Since then, the company has maintained innovation by producing such cars, a trend that has resulted in exponential profitability. Recently, the company’s CEO stated that everyone in the firm understands that innovation is the only backbone of Tesla. Indeed, creativity is cultivated when all stakeholders respond to the top management’s call.

2.3.3 Recognition, team-work approach, and removing barriers

The provision of rewards and recognition could have tremendous improvement of creativity. Companies that offer incentives to workers that show creativity tend to encourage the trend and eventually form a corresponding culture (Gaynor, 2013). Since human beings treasure incentives, especially monetary ones, recognizing and rewarding employees who consistently prove to be creative will transform the entire organization. Again, Tesla Motors (TM) offers an important case study for this point. The company rewards its top-performing employees hence encouraging their creativity. As a result, creativity has only been rising in the firm as evidenced by the production of even better vehicles. For instance, TM has since produced other car versions including Model S, Model X, and Model 3. The persistence on creativity eventually paid off for TM in 2013 when it reported its first-ever profit.

Then, encouraging a team-work approach to an issue has been found to have significant impact on creativity. Often, companies assign employees various tasks some of which are complex and result in delayed outcomes. Lee et al (2013) asserted that while creativity can sometimes be improved through allowing workers to carry out tasks alone, such approaches hinder the spreading of creativity in an organization. Apparently, when working as a team, workers exchange ideas hence impacting each other positively and inevitably strengthening their colleagues’ creativity levels. In contrast, when working alone on a task whose requirements do not correspond to the workers’ strengths, creativity diminishes. It is important, therefore, for Human Resource Managers (HRM) and supervisors to understand which tasks can be done by a team and assign workers accordingly.

Also, creativity will be increased in organizations where supervisors and managers remove unnecessary barriers while ensuring trust with their subordinates. Kalargyrou and Woods (2011 noted that when there is mistrust between managers and employees, the latter cannot exhibit any creative traits. Apparently, many fear that undertaking some steps might lead to reprisals including dismissal. Managers need to trust that employees can perform well even without supervision while the latter must also prove such that the assumptions are indeed true. Whenever this trust is formed, workers exceed their potential and improve results tremendously because “people will be creative if restraints are removed” (Ren and Zhang, 2015, p.24). In essence, the manager needs to show workers that there is no mistrust while employees need to prove that they can produce results without supervision.

2.3.4 Openness and nurturing competences

Creativity can be enhanced by an environment that encourages openness between workers and managers or supervisors. Timid workers who fear that undertaking certain actions may result in reprimands from managers tend to avoid trying new ideas. In contrast, employees that are allowed try new ideas thrive in devising new approaches. Kalargyrou and Woods (2011) explained that openness clears uncertainty and unnecessary tension that often hinders creativity in the workplace. Further, it enables workers to try new ideas without the fear of being labeled a failure if the initiative does not yield the expected results.

Evaluating employees with an aim of showing them their competencies is equally essential in safeguarding creativity. Ren and Zhang (2015) noted that many firms conduct appraisals without a consideration of how employees’ weakness can be improved. Instead, HRM evaluate employees’ performances after which a warning is issued. However, for creativity to thrive in the workplace, it is critical that HRM and supervisors conduct appraisals to relay employees’ strengths while helping them to overcome their weaknesses. While evaluation is important in every organization, the motivation of the process ought to be focused on improving the workers as opposed to threatening or cautioning them. Apparently, when workers are threatened, their immediate response is to try and prove a point by seeking to improve results. While such a response sounds reasonable, the problem is that it is not intrinsically motivated and the employee is motivated more by fear than by innate qualities.

2.3.5 Inner work life concept and valuing workers

In still another finding, creativity can be encouraged through the creation of the ‘inner work life’ concept. The concept advocates that companies ought to ensure three conditions exist in any working environment. First, the working environment needs to foster positive emotions to the workers. Secondly, the environment ensures that the positive emotions result in a strong internal motivation. The condition then leads to the third aspect of having a favorable perception of the colleagues and the work itself (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). Many companies offer incentives without considering other factors that might affect an employee’s internal motivation. As a result, the company expects workers to increase both creativity and productivity levels but these expectations hardly materialize. The concept of inner work life that comprises of the three conditions needs to be created to foster creativity.

These assertions were found to be factual as evidenced in the case Google Inc. In 2008, Google was ranked among the top ten best companies to work with by several magazines. At first, many business commentators attributed this ranking to the incentives the company offered to the workers. Apparently, the workers enjoyed three free meals daily, free Wi-Fi access, and free transport. While this treatment may have impacted the workers’ attitudes, Amabile and Kramer (2011) argued that Google created a working environment that comprised of the aforementioned conditions. As a result, Google workers had strong internal motivation, valued both their colleagues and work itself, and the environment fostered positive emotions. In the end, the workers demonstrated incredible creativity levels that were influenced more by the created environment than by the provided incentives.

Organizations that perceive workers as part of the contributing team as opposed to mere workers that are a means to an end report tremendous results. Mueller et al (2011) claimed that one reason most companies fail to benefit from its workforce’s potential is treating them as a means to an end. Some firms hardly value the importance of workers. As a result, such companies fail to benefit from the expertise and potential of its workers. Different results have been realized where companies take a different approach. For instance, Google executives attributed its success to the talented workforce it retains. However, the talent is only achieved because the company’s “workplace has important projects, where employees can contribute and grow” (Amabile & Kramer, 2011, p. 2). Indeed, treating workers as an integral part of the organization leads to positive results.

2.3.6 Empowering subordinates and sharing competencies

For creativity to increase, managers and other organizational leaders need to empower subordinates. Kalargyrou and Woods (2011) undertook a study to analyze how empowering subordinates impacted growth. Interestingly, the empowering of workers occurred through giving the employees enough space for self-discovery; also, managers were diligent and enthusiastic about work. In the findings, it became apparent that subordinates whose seniors were role models of competence, diligence, and enthusiasm went out of their way to showcase tremendous traits of creativity. Clearly, managers have a duty of not just empowering workers, but also doing so through becoming the role of models of the aforementioned qualities.

The sharing of interpersonal competencies for the success of the group also impacts a workforce. In the same research, Kalargyrou and Woods (2011) reported that workers would also be empowered through sharing the competences between themselves and the management. In other words, the managers empowered workers by sharing their competences, skills, expertise with the subordinates. The end-result of this empowering saw workers’ output increased catalyzed by the creativity that followed this initiative. In essence, creativity increases when all workers- especially managers- share their competencies.

2.4 Creativity-related challenges faced by managers.

2.4.1 Resource-allocation and lack of self-leadership

Though every organization understands the need for creativity, there are still some challenges yet to be solved in many firms. Managers face a myriad of challenges in ensuring that organizations benefit from the talents of their respective workforces. One such a problem is the lack of dedication of resources to the right departments. For instance, many organizations spend considerable monetary resources on Research and Development (R&D) while ignoring the need to work on boosting the creativity of the workforce. Engel, Dirlea, Dyer, and Graff (2015) noted that this is a trend formed by many business owners that only ends up creating more challenges than it sought to eliminate. Managers face the challenge of convincing the top management that such resources ought to be diverted to boosting workforce creativity. In the case of middle-level managers, their opinion is hardly taken.

While many organizations justify their decision to dedicate such considerable resources to R&D, studies show there is no correlation between the resources and innovation. In a study conducted in Germany for ten years, it became apparent that “there is no correlation between R&D budget and innovation” (Engel et al., 2015, p.4). Even though many companies have been keen on spending high budgets on R&D, this study showed there is hardly a correlation between it and innovation. Sadly, most managers cannot relay such information to the top management. If the top management took the time to work with the middle-level managers to understand the innovation needs, the situation would improve significantly.

Another challenge encountered by managers with regard to creativity is the lack of self-leadership by subordinates. As indicated earlier, self-leadership is instrumental in the advancement of creativity and innovation (Ghosh, 2015). However, not all employees demonstrate such traits hence affecting the success of an organization. Whereas a manager might try to motivate the workers, the latter often fails to showcase their self-leadership. As a result, the workforce becomes somewhat unreliable unless supervised. It is a challenge that makes it hard for managers to achieve organizational goals and objectives regardless of their training.

2.4.2 Organization learning and negative culture

The failure by top management to embrace and advance organizational learning compounds the problems. In the study conducted in Germany, Engel et al., (2015) noted that there was a significant correlation between superior management capabilities and organization growth. The research found that managers that had superior innovation management skills impacted the entire workforce. In response, the workers improved their skills tremendously. Inevitably, such businesses experienced exponential growth within a short time. The managers’ skills improved because the top management ensured the managers underwent training on ways to manage innovation. Managers are often tasked with the sustainable growth of organizations without being given the relevant training on talent and innovation management.

An additional challenge most managers encounter is creative individuals who do not cultivate or demonstrate self-leadership. While creativity is important, it cannot help in the innovation if individuals do not practice self-leadership. Ghosh (2015) noted that creativity by itself is not sufficient for the development of innovation. Rather, “individuals must also have a certain level of inner force that enables them to face the challenges in creativity” (p.1127). The inner force emanates from self-leadership that is critical in the facilitation of creativity and innovation in individuals. When workers fail to cultivate self-leadership, the manager’s frustrations increase since creativity alone will not be sufficient in helping workers to become innovative.

Furthermore, managers encounter more challenges in the form of an unsupportive workplace culture. Often, managers and workers will strive to achieve high levels of innovation but the working environment becomes a hindrance. The unsupportive culture occurs when both the managers and workers are denied the chance to take risks without unnecessary victimization. Conversely, creativity has been found to flourish in an environment characterized by high congruence between a risk-taking-supportive culture and creative individual (Ghosh, 2015). In short, individuals’ creativity ought to have a platform on which it can be expressed without undue reprimands. Thus, unless the managers’ concerns of an unsupportive environment are addressed, creativity and innovation will be hindered.

2.4.3 Untalented workforce, lack behavior-focused strategies, and resistance

Also, most managers grapple with the motivation of an untalented and uncreative workforce. In the instances where the manager or the supervisor did not participate in the hiring process, motivating untalented workers become an issue. It becomes worse when the tasks at hand require different attributes from the ones exhibited by the workforce. While some individuals might exhibit some levels of creativity, the demands of certain tasks might be higher. Worse still, some workers might not even show the slightest signs of creativity hence impeding organizational objectives and frustrating the manager’s plans. Ghosh (2015) asserted that an individual’s creativity is, in fact, a precondition for innovation, and the higher the level of creativity the higher innovative levels such individuals will attain. Then, the innovation transforms groups and, ultimately, the organization. Therefore, managers ought to have an input in the hiring process.

Managers may also encounter more challenges than the ones described above if organizations lack behavior-focused strategies. Since some workers may not be aware of their strengths, the creation of behavior-focused strategies would have an exceptional impact. Typically, these strategies help workers to increase self-awareness that eventually lead to the management of behaviors. Some of these strategies include self-rewarding, self-observation, self-correcting feedback, and self-goal setting. The adoption of these strategies can lead to optimal performance and increased creativity. For instance, Ghosh (2015) noted that self-correcting and self-rewards are essential in reinforcing and shaping desirable behaviors.

Additionally, these strategies are crucial in goal attainments since individuals analyze the behaviors and make changes accordingly. Secondly, the self-goal setting helps in setting up challenges and striving to achieve them while improving own weaknesses. Also, self-observation helps in the improved performances since individuals are conscious of their conduct. Self-rewards strategies help in the motivation of workers hence increased demonstration of innate skills. All these strategies help workers to set a positive thinking pattern that results in improved behaviors and creative thinking Ghosh (2015). Despite the importance of these strategies, some organizations still lack them hence making it hard for managers to benefit from a workforce. If such strategies were implemented in many organizations, the workers would have a high productivity since the tactics encourage improvement, creativity, and innovation.

In the process of managing a workforce, a manager may also encounter hardships if the demographic and psychographic factors of employees are unfriendly to creativity. Ghosh (2015) found that individual creativity is significantly influenced by their domain-relevant skills, education, background, age, gender, and task-related experience. If a workforce comprises of a majority of workers without previous experience in some fields, their creativity levels might be low. Similarly, some tasks may require some higher education levels than the ones in the workers. A host of the other mentioned factors might also complicate the creativity-management process. If managers encounter such challenges, it might be impossible for them to benefit from the workforce irrespective of their expertise.

2.4.4 Non-motivated and reactive workforces

Also, many managers experience hardships in maintaining an intrinsically motivated workforce. As indicated earlier, intrinsic motivation is essential in fostering creativity and it can be catalyzed by many factors including incentives. However, most employees’ intrinsic motivation is attached to monetary incentives, meaning they cannot accomplish much in the absence of such freebies. However, Ghosh (2015) noted that long-term results of creativity can only be realized when employees are motivated intrinsically not because of the incentives, but natural motivation. Such workers are self-driven, “excited by work itself, enthusiastic, attracted by the challenge of the problem and not being motivated only by money, recognition or external directives” (p. 1129). If managers can get such workers, creativity and innovation would thrive in almost all organizations as evidenced in the case of Google Inc. As noted, the company may have provided freebies, but the employees had a drive for the work that was not based on the incentives.

Lastly, managers will find it hard to achieve meaningful success if the employees lack proactive personalities. Ghosh (2015) reviewed an article whereby it was noted that employees with proactive personalities tend to have the highest levels of creativity. Such workers, when offered supervisory support, produced exceptional results in the area of creativity that led to innovation. The results were even better when the job requirements included creativity. Often, these are the workers most managers lack hence impeding creativity and innovation in any organization. Essentially, any organization that lacks workers whose personalities are proactive will inevitably suffer in the area of innovation.