Creativity Management And Its Application In Technology - Case Study Example

Within the context of an ever-increasingly competitive and globalised market environment, creativity and innovation have assumed singular importance. Indeed, management and marketing scholars have identified creativity and innovation as a competitive advantage and that one characteristic which distinguishes the successful from the unsuccessful organisation, the flexible and market-responsive one from the static, atrophying and irresponsive one. It is within the context of the stated that the question of managing creativity and innovation has occupied significant space in management literature, with the general consensus being that too much organisational control stifles creativity while too little lends to purposeless, quasi-creative endeavours as which do not successfully conclude with the creation of a good (Amabile, 1996, Drazin et al., 1999). The management of creativity is highly problematic. As may be inferred from Trott (2005), among others, the concepts of management and creativity appears to be antithetical with the notion of managing creativity' emerging as something of a paradox. Expounding upon this, Burns and Stalker (1961) emphasise that creativity is fundamentally founded upon freedom while management is premised upon control with the implication being that the management of innovation/creativity is synonymous with the control of freedom. Even while conceding to the somewhat oxymoronic character of the stated, the fact remains that within the organisational setting creativity has to be directed and managed in order to avoid its descent into purposelessness. Management is fundamental to the direction, as opposed to control, of creativity. Generic definitions of creativity, as proposed by Drazin et al. (1999:287) maintain it "as the process of engagement in creative acts, regardless of whether the resultant outcomes are novel, useful, or creative." This definition, even though it is a valid and legitimate descriptor of creativity, is indicative of a form of creativity and innovation which organisations strive to avoid. Within the organisational context, and as may be inferred from several researchers, creativity must be novel, useful and innovative (Singer and Adkins, 1984; Amabile, 1996; Drazin et al., 1999; Kennedy, 2001). Accordingly, the management of creativity aims towards the avoidance of innovations which are not novel, useful and creative, while seeking to assure the production of creativity which is. In other words, on the organisational level, organisational performance and the capacity to remain competitive are ultimately contingent upon the management of creativity. The question or more accurately, the dilemma, becomes how to manage innovation without stifling creativity. Organisational creativity, 'the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system' (Woodman et al., 1993:293), should be managed through the adoption of a multilevel approach (Woodman et al., 1993; Drazin et al., 1999) which acknowledges existing linkages between individual, group and organisational creativity (Woodman et al., 1993). Creativity can be enhanced by creating the right environment and conditions for individuals, groups and organisations. However, in work organisations creativity is often (unintentionally) undermined. To avoid the unintentional obstruction of creativity, Kennedy (2001), among others, maintains that organisations must engage in the intentional exploitation of the talents of creative individuals through the creation of an organisational environment which is conducive to the expression of creativity, on the one hand, and the facilitation of its concrete, purpose-driven fruition, on the other. In other words, an organisation's ability to facilitate creativity and manage it is dependant upon organisational structure, with the implication being that one of the first requirements of the effective management of creativity is the adoption of an organic versus a mechanistic organisational structure. Research studies demonstrate that an organisation's structure may influence its ability to utilize its existing knowledge for the purposes of enabling and effectively managing creativity. In an empirical work, Olson, Walker, and Ruekert (1995) tested the moderating role of product innovativeness in determining the type of organising mechanism that works best in new product development- Their findings indicate that the better the fit between the newness of the product idea and the coordination mechanism used in the development process, which ranged from bureaucratic control to the much more self-governing design centre structure, the better the project outcome in terms of both the new product and the development team's performance. Other researchers have explicitly considered the degree of organisation structure (i.e., formalization and centralization) and its effects on the utilization of research and knowledge within firms. Kanter (1983) presents the concept of "segmentalism" which results from mechanistic organisational systems. Although segmentalism reduces complexity by breaking down production into separate components, it inhibits creativity through firmly established routines and boundaries (Amabile, 1996). Zaltman (1986) found that less formalized and centralized organisations could acquire knowledge more easily than their more structured competitors. The organic structure, first identified by Bums and Stalker (1961), is described as highly flexible and informal. Individual workers can easily communicate with anyone in the organisation, including top management, if a specific task requires it. Thus, communication is not limited to immediate superiors, subordinates, and colleagues. The organic management style is also characterized by situational, as opposed to formal, authority. An individual's power is determined by what he/she can contribute in a specific situation, rather than by formal rank in the organisation. Additionally, duties and responsibilities are continually changing as warranted by the situation. Organic structure is obviously a multi-faceted construct that is not easily defined. Slater and Narver (1995: 9) summarized Burns and Stalker's description of organic structure as "an organisational architecture that is decentralized, with fluid and ambiguous job responsibilities and extensive lateral communication processes." The opposite of organic structure is the mechanistic style of management. The mechanistic structure is defined (Khandwalla 1977: 238) as a management style with "strictly defined duties, responsibilities, and authority; highly structured channels of communication; and a highly formalized hierarchy of authority." Khandwalla described the mechanistic structure as having some characteristics of traditional management, such as highly observable status differences between upper and lower management and strong pressure for personal and departmental loyalty. . Unlike the mechanistic structure, the organic structure allows the organisational framework of the product development process to be determined by the specific situation. Thus, the creative benefits of existing knowledge (improvisation, recombination of prior routines) are more likely to be retained, while the detrimental effects (a myopic view of new problem-solving approaches) are reduced. Based on the research evidence presented, it can be inferred that a flexible approach to existing knowledge, as represented in an organic organisation structure, positively moderates the relationship between existing knowledge and the acquisition of new, innovative information. An organic organisation structure results in more open communication patterns, which encourage interaction among members of various functional areas. Such interaction is necessary for gaining a shared interpretation of newly acquired information. Dougherty (1990) found that successful product innovators interacted extensively, with each department challenging and informing each other in an iterative fashion. Unsuccessful innovators, on the other hand, combined departmental knowledge in a sequential fashion. Although research supports the benefits of an organic organisation structure for acquiring innovative new information and gaining a shared interpretation of it, other studies demonstrate that an organic structure is not always helpful (Dougherty 1990). For example, Andriapolous (2003) recommend a more formalized structure for new product development. Mintzberg (1979) emphasizes how the organic and decentralized structure of adhocracy is unnatural in a simple, stable environment, pointing out its inefficient structure as compared to more bureaucratic organisational systems. Organisational structure and management, as indicated in the preceding, are central to the evolution of purpose-driven and efficient creative organisations. As noted in the introduction, however, and as argued in the above, management has the potential, not just to facilitate but to constrain and inhibit efficient creativity. Accordingly, and as management scholars have repeatedly asserted, the design of creative organisation management paradigms need to be founded upon an understanding of that which inhibits creativity versus that which stimulates it, following from which the findings of the said investigation need to be integrated into the management paradigm in question. Amabile (1996) developed an instrument for assessing those work environment factors which negatively and positively impact creativity. This tool, called 'KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity,' identifies environmental stimulants and obstacles to creativity and assesses work outcomes in terms of creativity and productivity. Through the application of KEYS to the study of several supposedly creative organisations, Amabile (1996) identified several creativity-inhibitors. The first set of inhibitors, linked to organisational culture, was identified as the harsh criticism of new ideas, destructive internal criticism, an organisational leadership and management which is reluctant to take any risks, including calculated ones, and organisational environment which embraces high levels of surveillance and evaluation expectations and an over reliance on extrinsic rewards (Singer and Adkins, 1984; Amabile, 1996; Mumford, 2000). Other inhibitors, unrelated to culture, were identified as workload pressure and stress, insufficient resources, e.g. materials, information, knowledge, frequent change and unclear definition of strategic goals and the creation of homogeneous teams as which impede creative thinking (Singer and Adkins, 1984; Amabile, 1998). The design of a management paradigm as which stimulates, rather than impedes creativity, should take all of the stated into consideration. There are several strategies by which an organisational may stimulate creativity. The first of these is through the integration of organisational encouragement tools into the management paradigm. The aforementioned, according to a bevy of researchers, provides the framework for all of the active flow of ideas (Singer and Adkins, 1984; Woodman et al., 1993), mechanisms for new idea development (Vedin, 1981) and tools for the constructive evaluation of ideas (Amabile, 1996; Amabile, 1998), within the parameters of a shared organisational vision. In addition to the stated, the stimulation of creativity is further contingent upon supervisory encouragement, as in a supervisor who serves as a good work model, sets goals appropriately and supports the work group; awarding creative employees the requisite freedom in deciding what work to do or how to do it and a sense of control over one's work; and availability of the resources needed for the research and development of creative ideas (Amabile, 1996; Amabile, 1998; Singer and Adkins, 1984; Vedin, 1981). The implication here is that the successful management of creativity is ultimately predicated on the formulation of an organisational environment which is inherently reared towards the stimulation of creativity. Le Theule and Fronda (2005) analyse the means by which management control can be exercised over creative activities. Such control is a challenging undertaking because, by definition, the creative process and outcomes may escape standardised measurement and control, and may be inhibited if restricted. It has been suggested therefore, that management control of creativity should tend towards the informal, e.g. adhocracy, granting creativity the necessary freedom. Of course creativity does not escape many organisational aspects, among which are power and politics. To deal with the power tension involved between the creative and non-creative groups within the organisation, there needs to be a clear and explicit link between the organisation's strategy, the creative process and control modes (Le Theule and Fronda, 2005). Added to that, goals and objectives should be broadly defined, focusing on creativity rather than production and outcomes. Managers should focus on how people approach work and the strategies they use (Mumford, 2000:322). In work environments tensions often erupt between creative people and others (Andriopoulos, 2003; Le Theule and Fronda, 2005; Matherly and Goldsmith, 1985) with the reason lying in the 'practical tensions, mixed messages and oppositions that characterise the management of organisational creativity' (Andriopoulos, 2003:375) and the tendency of others to misunderstand creative people (Amabile, 1996; Le Theule and Fronda, 2005). In exploring how successful creative organisations managed creativity Andriopoulos (2003) explored the ways in which management paradigms overcame these paradoxes, concluding that they did so through a number of strategies, such as support for employees' passions, but achieve financial goals; challenge employees, but build their confidence; encourage personal initiative, but maintain a shared vision; encourage diversity, but build cohesive work teams; learn from the past, but seek new areas of knowledge; and take incremental risks, but break new ground. While the larger of the creative organisations tend to be well-established and in a position to allocate interesting and challenging assignments to employees, smaller organisations are not. Most companies need to accept every order they can get to make decent profits. Whether these are the most challenging projects for their employees is of secondary importance (Andriopoulos, 2003). Hence, this inherent paradox leads to tension between creation and management/rationalisation. While Andriopoulos (2003) argues that the aforementioned natural tensions/paradoxes should be embraced and exploited rather than avoided, Le Theule and Fronda (2005) are convinced that a management paradigm which provides guidance even as it allows for a relative measure of freedom, is prerequisite to bridging the gap between creation and rationalisation (Le Theule and Fronda, 2005). Looking towards successfully innovative companies versus unsuccessful ones, management scholars have tended towards the conclusion that creativity can best be managed through the total quality management paradigms. Sega, an organisation whose survival is intrinsically linked to, not just its creativity but purposeful creativity, suffered near collapse consequent to its failure to direct its creativity and innovation towards products for which there was a market demand (Gantayat, 2000). In direct comparison, 3M, a company whose survival is as equally dependant upon its creative capacities, has successfully managed creativity in its various enterprises and divisions because of its adherence to a TQM framework (Goldfield, 2005). As per the stated framework, an organisation defines is objectives in relation to external market/environmental demands, presents its variant departments and employees with an outline of their responsibilities as regards the satisfaction of these objectives and clearly stipulates the nature of the resources which will be, accordingly, allocated. Following from that, employees and departments are given the necessary leeway and freedom to engage in unobstructed creativity with the only condition being adherence to organisational objectives; i.e. purposeful creativity (Johnson 2001). It is, thus, that organisations can affect a balance between freedom and control in their management of creativity. On the basis of the above stated, not only may one conclude with an affirmation of the veracity of the argument presented at the outset. Creativity must be nurtured, wit the implication being that highly centralised and formal organisational structures which embraced tight managerial control over business processes, will stifle creativity. At the same time, highly decentralised and informal organisational structures which allow employees too much freedom of operation are unlikely to engage in efficient creativity. Accordingly, and as argued in the preceding, it s incumbent upon organisational leadership to design management paradigms which lend to efficient creativity by integrating creativity stimulators, even as they eschew its inhibitors and, ultimately establish a balance between control and freedom. References Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Amabile, T.M. (1998) 'How to kill creativity' Harvard Business Review Vol.76 No.5:77-87. Andriopoulos, C. (2003) 'Six Paradoxes in Managing Creativity: An Embracing Act' Long Range Planning Vol.36 No.4:375-388. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Dougherty, D. (1990) Understanding new markets for new products.' Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11: 59-78. Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1999) 'Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organisations: a sensemaking perspective' Academy of Management Review Vol.24 No.2:286-307. Gantayat, A. (2000), "Sega Dream Machine Hits Tough Times", IGN Online, 2000. http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/29394.html Goldfield, N. et al. (2005) Pay for Performance: An excellent idea that simply needs implementation.' Quality Management in Health Care, 141(1), 31-44. Johnson, R.S. (2001) TQM Leadership for Quality Transformation. NY: ASQ Quality Press. Kanter, R.M. (1983) The Changemasters. New York: Simon and Schuster. Khandwalla, P. N. (1977) The Design of Organisations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Le Theule, M.A. and Fronda, Y. (2005) 'The organisation in tension between creation and rationalization: facing management views to artistic and scientific creators' Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 6. Matherly, T.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1985) 'The two faces of creativity' Business Horizons Vol.28 No.5:8-11. Mintzberg, H. (1 979) The Structuring of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mumford, M.D. (2000) 'Managing Creative People: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation' Human Resource Management Review Vol.10 No.3:313-351. Olson, E. M., Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R. (1995) Organising for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness.' Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59: 48-62. Singer, J.F. and Adkins, R.D. (1984) 'Managing for creativity in consulting engineering' Engineering Management International Vol.2 No.4:251-270. Slater, S. F. and Narver, J.C. (1999) Market orientation and the learning organisation.' Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59: 63-74. Vedin, B. (1981) 'Media industry creativity management applied to technology' Technovation Vol.1 No.2:147-155. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993) 'Toward a theory of organisational creativity' The Academy of Management Review Vol.18 No.2:293-321. ZaItman, G. (1986) Knowledge utilization as planned social change,' in Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, George Beal, et al. (eds.) Boulder, CO: The Westview Press: 433-62. Read More