A MODEL OF CREATIVITY AND.
INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS:
Teresa M. Amabilem4 TERESA M. AMABILE
In busines, in the 1980, ii impossbe co getaway from innovation
‘This ste in both eal sense and a figurative sons. Literally, is
Josie to read business journals or newspapers aend busines on
ferences, ore aval reports without constantly bearing about the in
portance of novation. Fgurativey itis imposible o escape the realty
that corporations most be inovatte in order to survive. Domestic and
Internationa competion, chaagiagsoveraeat regulations, and rapidly
‘hing marke codons demand constant sod visionary ination.
"With tt has been std about inporation in the business wedi, and
aul that hasbeen wen about novation By industrial researches, we
fllcka comprehensive model of ow the process of innovation ozats
{nd wht inflvenes i (. Delbecq& Mis, 985; Sar, 198). Certainly,
theres great dea of information about he innovation proces arent
alae, And numberof researchers hve proposed useful model that
‘serie various aspects of he innovation proses. Both researchers and
practioner ned a modelo encompass exsing formation ad inerte
[revious modes, for at lest three reasons. Fist, a sound and complete
‘model can stimulate further esearch, as well as channeling that esearch
{nthe iections of greatest need for information. Second, a model can
bulp us itegrte and understand existing information. Thi, the model
oes wel with current knowledge about innovation i shouldbe useful
In ping the pace of marti innovation.
Some ofthe information that wil dra on in formulating preliinary
model of erganiatonllnovaton comes fom an interview stad Ta |
‘Conducted wath Stan Gyskiowir (Amabile fe Gryshioicr 1987). Out
‘Study was designed to answer some quite general questions: What inl
{ooes creativity and innovation in work ogunzations? What i it bout
[eons and ter work enviroments thal makes a diereace? Our meted
Involved asking al ntrvcwes to tell us about tvo evens from thei
‘work experince: one event hat exemple high creativity, and one that
‘temple ow creat). Here san stv excep rm a interview
‘with Research and Development (R&D) scents
1 ms eng one aman en, Ae is, hd ace ate who
‘Esc es ten ey psy cao a
‘Serine sold se in abu nd ped oo say is con.
‘omg inh sete tr sn be ib cig
‘We asked out interviewees, i ling thi stories, to describe bth the
peron() volved inthe event nluding themselves, where appropiate)
land the work environment surrounding the event. This scientist deseibed
‘seit in thi wa
(A Mol of tity ed Into ix Orit ws
it ys oman ope is git deco dha te
oe tame ren ts ante evista oe
‘And this how the sion
3 dseribed his work enviroment:
Ea smi Foro ig. tig tm
Preset ct dan, I pty as
ity enc my ovine nme cy Te
‘Spa at ene nent st oe i ep
‘nie te nl Ge sen wt ato wag
‘hee ib oes they td love els on me, wo hae Hl
‘tae one sae tg was are ae
“This sory usta a central phenomenon that appeared repeatedly
in these interviews, «phenomenon tha eas recto he basi tre
‘tthe ergaszationa innovation mode wil present indivi restiviy|
land organizational inovat ae cosly nteriocked system. Indiv
reat ste most rac element of organizational anon, bt i
isnot, by isl, suficem. And features ofthe organization canbe the
most cuca detente am nares at ay pf ie
il describe the resus ofthis interview sty because examined,
ina Beoad way, al factor that ean potentially inflenceerstiviy and
innovation in ongeizations. I wil then preset fintings from my eX
‘etimeatal stds of reatviy, ndings Ua led 1o a mol of indo
‘ratty, Finally. I wil iterate al ef these experimental and pone
fpetimntal ings, slong with th individual creativity model toa pre
liminary model of organizational innovation.
‘Because no previeus modes of organizational innovation have pro
il incided the proces of dial creativity or the fstrs that
inoeace i, wl focus peinarly on those elements. This, I Bele,
‘the major contbuton that my formulation hast ofr.
DEFINITIONS
Because ther x ch diversity inthe seo the terms ereatvty" and
inavato,” i necessary to begin with clrfeaton of the defnons
will us. Some researches and teoiss define erent according 0
shuraceristis ofthe person, For example, ina ecet theortal nase
‘of ereaivity and innovation, Finlay and Lumsden i ess) sy, "We
Wil use the term era to refer tothe conseltion of personaly and
inelectua ais showa by individuals who, when gvena messue of ce1% TERESA M. AMABILE
‘ein, spend significant amounts of ine engaged in the creative process.”
‘Oihers hve defined ereatviysccodig to the proces sl. (Creativ
fete emergence inaction of novel relational product, owing tof
the uniqucnes ofthe advil onthe pe ha; ad he mata, events,
prrle or crcunstances 0 bis ie on the he (gers, 1958. However,
Irow theorists and researchers adopt a creativity defition focused on
the pradut: “novelty that useful (Stein, 1972).
1 are that a product vented definition most spreopcate For preset
purposes. Because of complexities in observation and assessment i
‘ute fic to aly on either person o process measures in ening
‘Seatvty. Product measores are conidetably moe saghtorward (ct
‘Ame, 19829). Iwe take indvidal ideas o products that can reably
‘bidet as creative by experts, then we ca ook atthe person qual
iis the environmental factors, and perhaps ven the thought processes
‘omresponding tothe production of those ideas or peodts. Ths, the
efinton used bere i Based on products (eas): ret 1s the pro-
‘duction of movel and wsefel ideas by a india or small group of
‘viduals working topeher
Tanovation bul om creative ideas as the basic elements. Organize
onal innovation the succesful implementation of eee eas within
dan orgentation, Within this definition, the eas in question ean be 0
thing from ideas for new product, processes, or sevies within the
[unzatin’s ine of busines to eas fr new procedure epics within
the organization ase The term "implementation fused broadly here,
{encompass lements of developing eas and puting them fo use. This
‘Sefton saiar to many existing definitions of inovation, but with
Some pot of distinction. Some dtiaitons of innovation are quite close
to dfinions of ereatvity; they fous on the production of eas rater
‘han the implementation. For example, Drucker (989) defines systematic
Innovation a “te puposel and orgnize search fr changes." while
“Zalman, Duca, aod Holbeck (197) define ita “any ie, practice, oF
Inatral artifact perceived tobe nes’ by the relevant unit of adoption
However, most current deitons of agovaion do into the devel
‘opment and implementation of new ides. Vande Ven (988) is quite ox
pst about the role of both the individual and the organization: ino-
{ation isthe development and implementation af ew seas by people
tio over tine engage i transactions wih thers within an instil
border (p.390). Kanter (983) defines inpovaton as "the process of
Tringing ay ew, problem soNing idea into use «Innovation i the
feneration, aceptance, and implementation of new ideas, processes,
products, or services Each of these latter definitions of imovation|
{anver, 1984; Van de Ven 1986), Ike those of her theorists (Findlay
‘S Lamsden in pose; Myers & Marge, 196%: West, Far, & King, 1986,
Ao of Cet testi Orit eo
Zalman etal, 1973 imply or explicly inendes the notion of eeative
(ovel nd sles being stecesflly implemented by slr Bou.
‘THE INTERVIEW STUDY
‘The nterviow stay actly includes group of thre stds, with tree