Many researchers generally define creativity as the production of novel, useful ideas or problem solutions (Amabile et al., 1996; Morris & Leung, 2010; Mumford, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Woodman et al., 1993). Creativity refers to both the process of idea generation or problem solving and the actual idea or solution (Amabile et al., 2005). For instance, the act of making a painting is creative and the outcome also might be creative, assuming it is a novel painting.
Creativity is very important to the innovation process (Burbiel, 2009) and this is because all innovation begins with creative ideas. To successfully create and implement new programs, new products or services having a good idea and the ability to develop that idea is crucial. Therefore, since many companies are striving for innovative solutions for everything from branding to services, creativity is of the utmost importance to business. Shalley and Gilson (2004) state, ―Most managers would agree that there is room, in almost every job, for employees to be more creative‖ (p. 33). Amabile (1996) believes that without creativity in design there is no
12
potential for innovation. Design is the process of transforming an idea into something that can be actually implemented and transformed into commercial value (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008).
Creative thinking is a complex cognitive activity that is difficult to measure.
Individuals‘ creative abilities have been studied for years: everything from personality to thinking styles of a creative person. There is a plethora of tests to gauge creative abilities, such as the Big Five Model, Torrance Tests, or the Thinking Style Inventory (Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee, 2007; Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Murphy & Janeke, 2006; Rudowicz, Lok, & Kitto, 1995; Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005).
Modern conceptions of creativity are so diverse and extensive that a definition of creativity must include related cognitive activities such as decision making, critical thinking, and metacognition (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995). Feldhusen and Goh explain that a thorough assessment requires several measures of the cognitive processes, motivations, interests, attitudes, and styles associated with creativity. Furthermore, researchers have never agreed on one creative process. Processes are often adapted for specific projects or individual tastes.
Researchers have also attempted to define the characteristics of a creative person.
In a study by Cheng, Hull and Kim (2010) they cite Kirton (1976) who proposed that creativity is composed of a single dimension ranging from an ―Innovative‖ to an
―Adaptive‖ orientation. Kirton found empirical evidence that creative people are more autonomous, introverted, and open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive.
Out of these, the most significant were stated as openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. However, his research shows that different types of creative people had varying results. For instance, creative people in art
13
differed from creative people in science. Artists‘ results showed more emotional instability, coldness, and their rejecting group norms than are scientists (Batey &
Furnham, 2006).
However, in Csikszentmihalyi (2006) systems view of creativity he points out that creative individuals do not exist in a vacuum. Csikszentmihalyi went beyond the individual experience of flow to discuss the creative person‘s relationship to the world and how it affects their creativity. Csikszentmihalyi explains that creativity is a very complex interaction among a person, a field, and a culture. Creativity is conducted often in a workplace which has many moderating factors to consider. It should also be noted that creativity in the workplace is not restricted to jobs that are traditionally viewed requiring creativity—such as art or design (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
Instead, employees in any position or level in an organization can benefit from
‗creative‘ behavior (Amabile, 1988). Also, creativity is an ongoing process rather than an outcome (Amabile; Rice, 2006).
2.1.1 Employee Creativity and Moderating Influences.
In Amabile and her team‘s (1996) influential work on creativity in context she states that we must look at the organization in entirety to understand innovative ability in the workplace, not merely the individual. Amabile and Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and Staw (2005) show that no matter what capabilities or skills an individual has in creativity or the production of knowledge, that person‘s social-environmental working environment can negatively influence or enhance the level that person‘s creative output. In the past most studies took a psychological approach to creativity, which emphasized characteristics of creative persons (Barron & Harrington, 1981). In more recent studies the social environment is examined because of its ability to influence both the level and the frequency of creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1996;
14
Binnewies, Ohly, & Niessen, 2008; Chang & Chiang, 2008; DiLiello & Houghton, 2008; Hirst, Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). Amabile et al. (2005) also highlights the significant impact organizations have on the motivation of creativity in employees.
In Amabile‘s (1988) study on organizational creativity she proposes three broad organizational factors that influence innovation or creativity. The first factor is the organizational motivation to innovate is crucial to the process. The basic orientation of the organization toward innovation, as well as supports for creativity and innovation, throughout the organization has a great influence on creativity. The second factor is whether the right resources needed are available to support innovation. Resources refers to everything that the organization has available to assist work in an area specified for innovation (e.g., the availability of specific training or the tools needed to build a prototype). The third important factor to Amabile and her team for creativity is the management practices; this refers to the allowance of freedom or autonomy while working. This also includes the level of challenging, interesting work, the clarity of strategic goals, as well as the composition and diversity of working teams.
A study by Wongtada and Rice (2008) show that some of the factors to consider when studying workplace creativity are care for employees, enjoyable ambiance, openness of communication, and employees‘ willingness to share expertise, ideas, and responsibilities in the creative process, and risk-orientation. Other factors affecting creativity in the workplace are supervisory support and positive encouragement from coworkers (Amabile et al., 1996; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003;
Wongtada & Rice).
It must also be understood that individuals have both cognitive (knowledge, cognitive skills, and cognitive styles/preferences) and non-cognitive (e.g., personality)
15
aspects of the mind are related to creative behavior (Wongtada & Rice, 2008).
Individual employee creativity is affected by the individual‘s level of field specific skills, such as factual knowledge and technical skills. Their creativity is influenced by their creativity-related skills, such as cognitive styles and work styles (Amabile et al., 1996). Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987) found that creative behavior was directly related to intrinsic motivation. Wongtada and Rice describe intrinsic motivation is defined as being self-driven, excited by work, enthusiastic, and attracted to challenges. Motivation should be about more than money, recognition or external directives.