ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY

APPLIED TO MBA DESIGN

PARTNERSHIP
UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORSHIRE

NOVEMBER 16, 2018

AZIM MOHAMMED
Student ID-1722448
 THE UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE

TITLE:

ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY

STUDENT NAME:

AZIM MOHAMMED

STUDENT ID:

1722448

UNIT TITLE:

CORPORATE INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

UNIT CODE:

BSS057-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Creativity, and innovation are inter-related disciplines with creative thinking commencing at
the individual level before occurring at an organizational level. Innovation, is a major factor
influencing organizational success in a dynamic business environment. This asserts that an
organization must employ creative thinkers to foster innovation, and to ensure its survival in
a rapidly changing and evolving business environment due to technological advancements.

This report explores creativity within the organization by presenting two theoretical models
which illustrates the dynamics of perception and psychological factors affecting individual
creativity process within the organization. Also, the individual’s creative behaviour is
examined through cognitive factors, personality, knowledge, motivation and antecedent
conditions.

The conceptual model is explained to ensure that the reader has an understanding of it before
explanation of the KEYS. Analysis of the KEYS suggested that MBA Design partnership has
lack of freedom and motivation as some of their imbalances within the organization.

Group creativity is then elaborated on and analysis of this in relation to MBA. Contextual
Influences are explained and the importance of rewards are discussed and should be taken
into consideration by the company if they intend to have full employee participation.
Lastly the conclusion details the problems
Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1
CREATIVE CLIMATE AND INNOVATION ................................................................................. 2
Organizational Creativity ................................................................................................................... 2
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................................................................... 4
KEYS APPLICATION TO MATCH BOX ARCHITECTS (MBA) ............................................... 6
INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY ............................................................................................................ 7
GROUP CREATIVITY....................................................................................................................... 8
CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ......................................................................................................... 8
Human Resource Leadership.............................................................................................................. 8
Rewards ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Open Innovation.................................................................................................................................. 10
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 10
RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................................... 11
References ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 13
 1

INTRODUCTION

Change is a constant phenomenon which is stimulated by new ideas. These new ideas arise
from creative thinking. Creativity is present in every aspect of our lives as people encounter
and try to find solutions to problems existing at work and within their homes. Mayer (1999)
defines creativity as the development of useful or influential original ideas. While innovation
is the exploitation and development of creativity to add economic value to the organization.
Creativity and Innovation are important factors of organizational success and survival.
Organizations seek to stimulate and harness individual creative thinking as a source of
competitive advantage. Both creativity and innovation are complex phenomena which require
skilful leadership to make effective changes.
Organizational creativity is linked to innovations within organizations, and explores factors such
as personality, experience, culture, motivation and cognitive factors to name a few which are
essential to creative behaviour. Social factors such as mentoring, modelling, family influences
and social rewards contribute to a major part of group creativity. (Amabile 1983) While
approaches such as brainstorming, group factors stimulating creativity and centralizing the role of
group processes within organizations are techniques used to stimulate new ideas, and strategies to
enhance group creativity. (Osborn 1963; Stein 1974 & Woodman et al 1993) As enthusiasm for
group creativity stems from those who promote team work and collaborative learning which have
become important and permanent attributes of organizations.
The aim of this paper is to analyse organizational creativity within Match Box Architects
Design Partnership (hereafter referred to as MBA). MBA is a small architecture firm
providing architectural services in residential, and commercial sectors and has expanded into
the industrial sector (construction of schools). MBA was one of the few companies to achieve
growth and increased turnover during the global financial crisis. Their success comes as a
collaborative group effort among their staff. This paper discusses:
➢
the climate for creativity and innovation within an organization,
➢
contextual influences affecting organizational creativity
➢
creative leadership within organizations
➢
individual creativity within organizations, and
➢
open innovation within organizations
 2

Lastly, the conclusion summarizes creativity within organizations and presents

recommendations to improve individual creativity within MBA Design Partnership in order
to improve their

CREATIVE CLIMATE AND INNOVATION

Organizational Creativity

Organizational creativity is 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). Organizational Creativity is understood as a subcategory of
innovation .While innovation is characterized as the subject of organizational change the
theoretical construct of organizational change encompasses innovation however the concept
of organizational change itself is not innovation.

Creativity is a component of change which is fundamental to all organizations’ survival. To

understand organizational creativity there needs to be an understanding of elements such as: -

1. the process of creative thinking

2. the creative individual
3. the creative idea
4. the interaction of the creative elements.

Theories of organizational creativity and innovation are attributed to major contributors;

Amabile (1988), and Woodman et al (1993).

Amabile developed the conceptual model which proposes three organizational factors;
motivation, resources and management practices. Motivation guides the organization towards
innovation and supports both innovation and creativity within the organization. Resources
refers to all the necessary tools available in meeting organizational targets for innovation.
Management practices refers to the freedom and autonomy in work, strategic goals, creation
of a diverse work team. The conceptual model formulates KEYS which is a thorough
discussion of the confidential theory. (Amabile et al, 1996)

Woodman et al, (1993) developed an interactionist model of creative behaviour at the

individual level which asserts that creativity is an intricate aspect of an individual’s behaviour
 3

in any specified situation. The situation is distinguished by contextual and social influences
which either promote or obstruct creative thinking. The individual is influenced by numerous
pre-existing conditions which underpins cognitive and noncognitive abilities or
predispositions. The model integrates elements such as personality, cognitive factors,
psychology and rationalization of creative thinking.

<< Woodman et al, 1993)>>

Figure 1 illustrates the interactionist perspective on creativity within the organization from
the social context. (Woodman, et al., 1993) The individuals’ creative behaviour is influenced
by past and crucial points of a present situation. Furthermore, the individual’s creative
behaviour is related to both cognitive and noncognitive mental aspects. Individual creativity
is affected by “antecedent conditions, cognitive factors, personality, knowledge, motivation,
social and contextual influences.

Figure 1 hypothesises that behaviour is dependent upon the interaction of the individual and
the situation. This interaction is repeated at each stage of social interaction within the
organization. This asserts the group creativity is dependent on individual creative behaviour,
the individual’s interaction, characteristics and process of the group and contextual
influences. However, organizational creativity is the basis of the creative outputs of its
contextual influences and groups.
 4

The concept of creative output stems from the intricacy of the individual, group and
behaviour occurring within the organization.

The arrows in Figure 1 highlight the individuals interactions and situations and influences
whereas the dotted lines illustrate the effects and consequences within both groups and
individual levels.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

<<Amabile et al, 1996>>

Figure 2 above illustrates the conceptual aspects of the model describing the individual KEYS
scales and observing the interaction between the individual scale and evaluated creativity. The
scales which illustrated a positive relation to creativty as called “stimulant scales’ whereas those
negatively related to creativity are “obstacle scales.” The conceptual categories of the
 5

KEYS model were formulated from reviewing antecedent research and a study in which 120
participants described both high level and low level creativity scenarios from their work
experiences (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987).
The conceptual categories describe the psychological structure illustrating the effect of
creative behaviour. The psychological structures are derived from the intrinsic factor of
motivation on creativity. This asserts that individuals are most creative when motivated by
interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and work challenges (Amabile 1988 & 1993).

The conceptual categories which influence creativity within the work environment are: - 1)
Encouragement of Creativity, 2) Autonomy or Freedom, 3) Resources, 4) Pressures and 5)
Organizational Impediments to Creativity.

1) Encouragement of Creativity develops hypotheses of new ideas operating at major levels

within the work environment. Amabile at al. (1996) lists these major levels as organizational,
supervisory and work group encouragement.

Organizational encouragement initiates taking risks and encourages the exchange of new ideas
which enhances innovation through all levels of management within the organization (Delbecq
& Mills, 1985). Secondly, these new ideas must be fairly supported and evaluated (Kanter,
1983) because extremely critical evaluation of new ideas impede creativity (Amabile, 1979).
Thirdly, creativity should be recognized and rewarded. Although, engaging in activities for
rewards can impede creativity (Amabile et al., 1986), it increases the expectation of a
‘perceived bonus’ as a reward for an individual’s competence (Amabile et al., 1986). Lastly,
once the organization adopts or practices the above-mentioned steps to organizational
encouragement, collaborative ideas, decision making, and participative management can be
established throughout an organization (Allen, et al., 1980).

Under Supervisory encouragement, project managers or line supervisors are responsible for
clarifying team or organizational goals (Bailyn, 1985), honest and open interactions between
subordinate staff and supervisors (Kimberley, 1981) and supporting team work and ideas
(Delbecq & Mills, 1985).

Work group encouragement can take place within group work, team member’s diversity,
dedication to project, and constructive criticism of new ideas (Albrecht & Hall cited in
Amabile et al, 1996). Constructively challenging new ideas and shared dedication will
increase the individuals’ motivation.
 6

2) Freedom or Autonomy allows individuals to control and own their ideas (Bailyn, 1985
cited in Amabile, 1996). Individuals are more creative when they perceive themselves having
freedom or autonomy in work tasks.

3) Resources. Resource allocation is related to project creativity. The perception of adequate

resources leads individuals to believe in the intrinsic value of the projects. (Amabile, 1996)

4) Pressures from workload can inhibit creativity however a certain degree of pressure can
positively influence creativity (Amabile, 1988). Andrews and Farris (1972) cited in Amabile
(1996) supports the claim the pressure influences creativity by affirming time pressure’s
relation to high levels of creativity. The findings conceptualize workload pressure inhibiting
creativity while challenge positively influences creativity. (Amabile, 1996)

5) Organizational Impediments. Limited research has provided evidence of organizational

impediments to creativity (Amabile, 1988; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987 cited in Amabile et
al, 1996) however factors such as rigid management, organizational discord, and traditional
ideologies are impediments to creativity (Kimberley, 1981; Kimberley & Evanisko, 1981
cited in Amabile, 1996).

KEYS APPLICATION TO MATCH BOX ARCHITECTS (MBA)

The KEYS Items and Scales Model of Match Box Architects categorize work perceptions
that affect the individual’s creative ability. The findings illustrate that MBA promotes
organizational and supervisory encouragement which are fundamental to promoting support
and collaborative ideas throughout the organization. This was developed because of the
company’s initiatives and strategies to promote an organizational environment and
atmosphere of collaboration among subordinate staff and management in order to achieve the
company’s goals.

Amabile (1996) highlights the importance of resources. If an individual is unable to access

adequate resources, it will be perceived that without creativity will be inhibited because of a
lack of adequate resources. With adequate resources and organizational encouragement,
individuals can be more productive and engaging in an organization and this will lead to
enhanced creative thinking and innovation.
Furthermore, MBA’s KEYS highlight that autonomy or freedom, challenge, creativity, and
organizational inhibitors are imbalanced within MBA. If an individual doesn’t perceive
ownership in his/her tasks, isn’t challenged yet faces numerous organizational inhibitors, then
 7

organizational creativity will be inhibited. MBA needs to develop strategies to focus on the
above-mentioned areas.

INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY

Individual creativity is characterized by features such as antecedent conditions, personality

and cognitive factors, intrinsic motivation and knowledge.

1. Early research on creativity and creative thinking were characterized by historical and
biographical information on famous theorists of creativity. Galton, 1869 cited in
Woodman et al, 1993 developed the historiometric approach to exploring creativity.
His work was followed by many theorists who later advanced his approach by
categorizing biological factors.
2. Personality factors: - The correlation of creativity and personality has diverse findings
dependent on the area of study. Main personality traits have been established from
different areas of study. These personality traits are autonomy, wide range of interests,
inclination and liking to challenge, high energy, intuition, self-confidence, and
independence of judgement (Barron & Harrington 1981 cited in Woodman et al, 1996).
3. Cognitive Factors: - Research has shown that cognitive abilities are related to creativity.
Cognitive abilities integrate contextual and social differences. Factors of idea production
are “associative fluency, fluency of expression, figural fluency, ideational fluency, speech
fluency, word fluency, practical ideational fluency, and originality”
(Carrol 1985 cited in Woodman et al, 1993). Next, divergent and convergent thinking
must align to effectively engage in problem solving within organizations.
4. Intrinsic Motivation: - One of the most fundamental elements in creativity is
motivation (Woodman, et al., 1993). Simon (1967) cited in Woodman et al, (1993)
proposed that the control of attention is the main function of motivation. Extrinsic
motivational factors such as incentives and performance evaluation systems
negatively affect intrinsic motivation towards creativity.
5. Knowledge and expertise are important when examining the individual’s creative
competency. Knowledge, talent, technical capabilities, cognitive abilities, and
personality traits encompass the entire knowledge component affecting the individual.
 8

Overall the interactionist model of creativity expresses that creativity is a function of the
above-mentioned features such as antecedent conditions, personality, cognition, motivation
and knowledge.

GROUP CREATIVITY

A group is defined as two or more individuals that have a relationship and have influence on
each other due to their interactions (Paulus, 1989; Forsythe 1999; Huczynski and Buchanan,
1991 cited in Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014). Creativity is defined as the generation or
development of unique ideas (Amabile, 1996). Baer (1993) correlates creativity with
divergent thinking or the degree to which individuals can produce a wide range of ideas in
response to a specific problem or situation. Group creativity is therefore defined as divergent
thinking in groups and group innovation is understood as the execution of an idea (Brown,
Tumeo, Larey and Paulus 1998 cited in Paulus 2000).

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES

Human Resource Leadership

Democratic
According to Wallace and West DATE a democratic leadership style was very conducive to
success. Furthermore, Cummings & Oldham, (1997) (Rosing, et al., 2010)1997) indicate that
supportive management enhances creativy as opposed to controlling management methods.
Supportive management shows emphathy towards employees and offers positive solutions to
problems solving. (Gong et al., 2012) On the other hand, individual’s will be demotivated by
controlling management because the creative process will be stifled.

Ambidextrous
Ambidexterity is defined as the ability to use both hands with similar aptitude. In business this
term is associated to organizational strategies and exploration. An ambidextrous leader “is a
leader that is able to foster exploration by opening behaviours and exploitation by closing
 9

behaviours and flexibly switch between these behaviours according situational and task
demands” (Rosing, et al., 2010)
One of the most challenging management responsibilities is innovation. This concept is
fundamental to the survival of a firm. Innovation is categorized into exploitative and
exploratory.
MBA has accomplished financial success during the global recession and this was attributed
to the talented and creative thinking individuals working at the organization.

Relational
Relational leadership refers to the rational process of individuals accomplishing change
which benefits everyone. This contextual influence values strong ethics, inclusion, and
acknowledges diversification of talents.

Rewards

Locke and Latham (1990) link goal- setting to productivity as a means of improving employee
performance. Lee, Sheldon and Turban (2003) found that low confidence in an individuals
capabilities is associated with goal- avoidance motivation and therefore lower performance and
achievement .In contrast to this Mumford has argued that organizations should only vaguely
define goals and should not concentrate on their implementation.In this method, the employees
are given the opportunity to remedy the problem at hand using their own approach.
Rewards can be financial which may take the form of monetary gifts or it may take the form
of recognition such as employee of the month title. Amabile (1973, 1980, 1990) claims that
some rewards can reduce the effects of creativity in individuals.
Rewards are key motivators of individuals. Match Box Architects Design Partnership
(MBA) needs to recognize and reward individuals. However, MBA has managed to promote
a culture of sharing feedback, ideas and solutions among subordinates to management.

Resources

All companies regardlesss of size are dependent on resources. The physical resources of a
company refer to; the building as well as equipment, the intangibles refer to; the company’s
brand name, trademark, patents owned,and the capabilities of innovation.Financial resources
 10

refer to the financial power of the company which are;equity, cash, debt, stocks,bonds
(Chatterjee & Wernerfelt, 1991).

Open Innovation

Chesbrough, (2003) defines open innovation as “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of
innovation, respectively”
Open Innovation is approached a multitude of different methods and it is almost impossible
to determine the exact OI techniques that are used since OI itself is innovation so the model
changes according to the industry, geographical location and parties involved.

PLAN FOR MBA DESIGN PARTNERSHIP

MBA Design Partnership should utilize professional PM software.They should also

implement a reward system beginning immediately. Create workshops for employees where
employees can “feel” some sort of freedom since this is lacking in the organization.

CONCLUSION

Two main goals of organizations are survival and profitability. An organization depends on
the collaborative effort of individuals to promote creative thinking, creativity, and innovation.
Woodman et al., (1993), and Amabile (1996) develop models of illustrating and identifying
factors affecting creativity within organizations.

Woodman et al., (1993) developed an interactionist model for individual creative behaviour
by examining the contextual and social influences affecting the individual however this paper
focuses on the contextual influences such as human resource leadership, relational, rewards,
resources and open innovation. While, Amabile (1996), analyses the psychological influences
(encouragement of creativity, freedom, resources, pressures, and organizational impediments)
affecting the individual within the work environment. Most individuals are not inherently
creative so intrinsic and extrinsic factors when analysed can remove blocks to individual
creativity within the organization.
 11

RECOMMENDATION

MBA KEYS Scales illustrate the conceptual which highlights the key areas that influence
individual creativity within Match Box Architect (MBA). The company’s main areas of focus
are organizational and supervisory encouragement which positively influences individual
creativity. However, MBA needs to focus on areas such as challenges, autonomy, inhibitors
and organizational creativity. MBA is a small company of 16 employees, yet the organization
has more inhibitors than autonomy, and creativity. The company needs to develop strategies
of reducing its inhibitors while increasing creativity and autonomy. If an individual perceives
ownership of his work, he will be demotivated to engage in tasks therefore creativity will be
impeded.
MBA Design Partnership Should invest in Professional Project management software and
utilize this which would be able to track their time,tasks as well as sales rather than using
three different softwares.
 12

References

Allen, T. J., Lee, D. & Tushman, M., 1980. R&D performance as a function of internal communication,
project management, and the nature of work. IEEE Transactions, Volume 27, pp. 2-12.

Amabile, T., 1979. Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Pyscology , Volume 37, pp. 221-233.

Amabile, T., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds). Research in organizational behaviour, Volume 10, pp. 123-197.

Amabile, T., 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivaion in the workplace. Human Resource Managment Review, Volume 3, pp. 185-201.

Amabile, T. H. B. G. B., 1986. Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward.
Journal of Personality and Social Pyscology, Volume 50, pp. 14-23.

Amabile, T. M. et al., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(5), pp. 1154-1184.

Amabile, T. M. & Gryskiewicz, S., 1987. Creativity in the R&D Laboratory, Greensboro, NC. :
Unpublished Technical Manual .

Baer, J., 1993. Creativity and Divergent thinking: A Task Specific Approach.

Bailyn, L., 1985. Autonomy in the Industrial R&D Laboratory. Human Resource Management ,
Volume 24, pp. 129-146.

Borghini, S., 2005. Organizational Creativity; breaking equilibrium and order to innovate. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 9(4), pp. 19-33.

Chatterjee, S. & Wernerfelt, B., 1991. The Link between Resources and Types of Diversification:
Theory & Evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), pp. 33-48.

Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation;The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Harvard business school press.

Cummings, A. & Oldham, G., 1997. Enhancing Creativity: Managing Work Contexts for the High
Potential Employee. California Managment Review, 40(1), pp. 22-38.

Dawson, P. & Andriopolous, C., 2014. Managing change,creativity and innovation. Los Angeles: s.n.

Delbecq, A. M. P., 1985. Managerial Practices that enhance innovation. Organizational

Dynamics, 14(1), pp. 24-34.

Kanter, R., 1983. The Change Masters. New York: s.n.

Kimberley, J. E. M., 1981. Organizational Innovation. The influence of individual organizational and
contextual factors on hospital adoption of tecnological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, Volume 24, pp. 689-713.
 13

Lee, F. & Sheldom. K, T. D., 2003. Personality and the Goal Striving Process: The Influence of
Achievement Goal Patterns, Goal Level, Mental Fous on Performance and Enjoyment. Journal
of Applied Pyschology, 88(2).

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P., 2006. New directions in goal setting theory. Current directions
in Psychological Science, 15(5), pp. 265-268.

Locke, E. L. G., 1990. Goal Setting Theory of Motivation. Applied Pyschology.

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E., 1999. Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning:. Journal of
Educational Pyschology, Volume 91, pp. 358-368.

Mortara, L., Napp, J., Slacik, I. & Minshall , T., 2009. How to implement open innovation. 1st ed.
London: University of Cambridge.

Paulus, P., 2000. Groups, Teams and Creativity: The Creative Potential of idea-Generating.
Applied Psychology, 49(2).

Pillai, R. & Williams, E. A., 2004. Transformational leadership,self efficacy,group cohesiveness,

commitment and performance. Journal of Organizational change management, 17(2), pp. 144-159.

Pirola-Merlo, A. & Mann, L., 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team
creativity;aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Volume 25, pp.
235-257.

Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N. & Frese, M., 2010. Ambidextrous Leadership in the Innovation Process.
Innovation and Corporate Growth Journal.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Griffin, R. W., 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp. 293-321.

Zaccaro, S. J., 2007. Trait Based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), pp. 6-16.

Bibliography
Allen, T. J., Lee, D. & Tushman, M., 1980. R&D performance as a function of internal communication,
project management, and the nature of work. IEEE Transactions, Volume 27, pp. 2-12.

Amabile, T., 1979. Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Pyscology , Volume 37, pp. 221-233.

Amabile, T., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds). Research in organizational behaviour, Volume 10, pp. 123-197.

Amabile, T., 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivaion in the workplace. Human Resource Managment Review, Volume 3, pp. 185-201.

Amabile, T. H. B. G. B., 1986. Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward.
Journal of Personality and Social Pyscology, Volume 50, pp. 14-23.

Amabile, T. M. et al., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(5), pp. 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M. & Gryskiewicz, S., 1987. Creativity in the R&D Laboratory, Greensboro, NC. :
Unpublished Technical Manual .

Baer, J., 1993. Creativity and Divergent thinking: A Task Specific Approach.

Bailyn, L., 1985. Autonomy in the Industrial R&D Laboratory. Human Resource Management ,
Volume 24, pp. 129-146.

Borghini, S., 2005. Organizational Creativity; breaking equilibrium and order to innovate. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 9(4), pp. 19-33.

Chatterjee, S. & Wernerfelt, B., 1991. The Link between Resources and Types of Diversification:
Theory & Evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), pp. 33-48.

Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation;The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Harvard business school press.

Cummings, A. & Oldham, G., 1997. Enhancing Creativity: Managing Work Contexts for the High
Potential Employee. California Managment Review, 40(1), pp. 22-38.

Dawson, P. & Andriopolous, C., 2014. Managing change,creativity and innovation. Los Angeles: s.n.

Delbecq, A. M. P., 1985. Managerial Practices that enhance innovation. Organizational

Dynamics, 14(1), pp. 24-34.

Kanter, R., 1983. The Change Masters. New York: s.n.

Kimberley, J. E. M., 1981. Organizational Innovation. The influence of individual organizational and
contextual factors on hospital adoption of tecnological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, Volume 24, pp. 689-713.

Lee, F. & Sheldom. K, T. D., 2003. Personality and the Goal Striving Process: The Influence of
Achievement Goal Patterns, Goal Level, Mental Fous on Performance and Enjoyment. Journal
of Applied Pyschology, 88(2).

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P., 2006. New directions in goal setting theory. Current directions
in Psychological Science, 15(5), pp. 265-268.

Locke, E. L. G., 1990. Goal Setting Theory of Motivation. Applied Pyschology.

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E., 1999. Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning:. Journal of
Educational Pyschology, Volume 91, pp. 358-368.

Mortara, L., Napp, J., Slacik, I. & Minshall , T., 2009. How to implement open innovation. 1st ed.
London: University of Cambridge.

Paulus, P., 2000. Groups, Teams and Creativity: The Creative Potential of idea-Generating.
Applied Psychology, 49(2).

Pillai, R. & Williams, E. A., 2004. Transformational leadership,self efficacy,group cohesiveness,

commitment and performance. Journal of Organizational change management, 17(2), pp. 144-159.

Pirola-Merlo, A. & Mann, L., 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team
creativity;aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Volume 25, pp.
235-257.
 14

Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N. & Frese, M., 2010. Ambidextrous Leadership in the Innovation Process.
Innovation and Corporate Growth Journal.
 15

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Griffin, R. W., 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp. 293-321.

Zaccaro, S. J., 2007. Trait Based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), pp. 6-16.