1JM06 Summary - Human Aspacts of Innovation

Summary of Human Aspects of
Innovation Articles
geschreven door
astridgroenen
www.stuvia.nl
Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
Human aspects of Innovation – 1JM06

Lecture 1: Human Creativity: The starting point of Innovation................................................. 3
Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review. ............................... 3
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & Baas, M. (2010). Creativity in Individuals and Groups:
Basic Principles with Practical Implications, In: D. De Cremer, R, Van Dick, & J.K.
Murnighan, Social Psychology and Organizations, New York: Routledge (pp. 297-319). * 6
Amabile, T.M. & Pratt, M.G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. .................................................................................. 9
Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative
collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-500.
.............................................................................................................................................. 18
Lecture 2:.................................................................................................................................. 20
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and
creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 201-212 ................................................................................................. 20
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128 ........................... 21
Gevers, J. M., & Demerouti, E. (2013). How supervisors' reminders relate to subordinates'
absorption and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(6), 677-69. .................... 23
Lecture 3 ................................................................................................................................... 24
Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & Elliott, S. (2018). The Skills Needed to Think
Creatively: Within-Process and Cross-Process Skills. In Roni Reiter-Palmon, Victoria L.
Kennel and James C. Kaufman (Eds.) Individual Creativity in the Workplace (pp. 129-
152). Academic Press ........................................................................................................... 24
Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of
Management Executive, 17(1), 96-109. ............................................................................... 26
Lecture 4 ................................................................................................................................... 29
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtually: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on
team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495. ................................. 29
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering
team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996. .................................................................................. 31
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77-89. ..... 34
Lecture 5:.................................................................................................................................. 37
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project
stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1537-1552. 37

Lecture 6 ................................................................................................................................... 40
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leaders behavior
in work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 5-32................................................................................................................................. 40
Burroughs, J.E., Dahl, D.W., Moreau, C.P., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G.J. (2011).
Facilitating and rewarding creativity during new product development. Journal of
Marketing, 75, 53-67. ........................................................................................................... 45
Grant, A.M., & Berry, J.W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96. ..................................................................................... 49
Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business School
Publishing. * ......................................................................................................................... 53

Lecture 1: Human Creativity: The starting point of Innovation

Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review.
Creativity gets killed more often than it gets supported. It is undermined unintentionally every day in
work environments that were established to maximize business imperatives such as coordination,
productivity, and control.
What is business creativity? To be creative in business, an idea must be
• Appropriate
• useful
• actionable
• original.
• It must influence the way business gets done (e.g. by improving a product or opening up a
new way to approach a process).
Creativity can benefit every function of an organization (even accounting).
Expertise and creative thinking skills are an individual's raw materials (natural resources), but
motivation determines what people will actually do.
All forms of motivation do not have the same impact on creativity. In fact, there are two types of
motivation:
• Extrinsic motivation: it comes from outside a person (e.g. money/rewards).
o It doesn't necessarily stop people from being creative, but it doesn't help in many
situations (lack of passion/interest)
• Intrinsic motivation: a person's internal desire to do something.
o When people are intrinsically motivated, they engage in their work for the challenge
and enjoyment of it. The work itself is motivating.
o Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity: people will be most creative when they
feel motivated primarily by the interest, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself,
and not by external pressures.
Managers can influence all three components of creativity, but the fact is that expertise and creative-
thinking skills are more difficult and time consuming to influence than motivation (especially the time

and money involved). Intrinsic motivation can be increased considerably by even subtle changes in an
organization's environment (it will yield more immediate results).
Note: creativity-killing practices are seldom the work of lone managers.
What managerial practices affect creativity? And what can managers do to enhance creativity?
Challenge. Perhaps the most efficacious (matching the right people with the right assignments).
Match people that play to their expertise, and their skills in creative thinking, and ignite intrinsic
motivation. Stretch employees’ abilities: not so little that they feel bored but not so much that they
feel overwhelmed and threatened by a loss of control. Therefore, have detailed information about
the employees and assignments. However, this is difficult and time-consuming.
Freedom. Giving people autonomy concerning the means (the process), but not necessarily the ends.
Just including employees in discussions will not be sufficient. It is important that whoever sets the
goals also makes them clear to the organization and that these goals remain stable for a meaningful
period of time. Autonomy heightens their intrinsic motivation and sense of ownership. It allows
people to approach problems in ways that make the most of their expertise and creative-thinking
skills.
Resources. Deciding how much time and money to give a team or project can either support or kill
creativity. E.g. fake deadlines created distrust, and impossible tight deadlines cause burnouts.
Moreover, creativity often takes time.
Adding more resources above a ‘threshold of sufficiency’ does not boost creativity. Below this
threshold however, a restriction of resources can damper creativity.
Another resource is physical space: creative teams need open, comfortable offices. However: it is not
the most important resource of all (and people focus too much on this).
Work-group features. You must create mutually supportive groups with a diversity of perspectives
and backgrounds. Also, these other features are important:
• Shared excitement over goal
• Display a willingness to help each other
• Recognize the unique knowledge and perspectives
Again, creating teams like this requires managers to have a deep understanding of their people (for
their knowledge, attitudes, problem-solving styles, motivations). Homogeneous teams cause less
friction but do less to enhance expertise and creative thinking.
Supervisory encouragement. A simple step to foster creativity is to praise them for creative efforts,
not just the successful ones. To sustain passion, most people need to feel that their work matters.
Also, managers very often look for reasons to not use a new idea instead of exploring it further (this
is because people believe that they will appear smarter to their bosses if they are more critical, and it
often works). Why is this damaging to creativity?
• People focus on the external rewards and punishments associated with their output, thus
increasing extrinsic motivation (negative impact on intrinsic motivation)
• Creates a climate of fear (negative impact on intrinsic motivation)
• Ideas that don't pan out are terminated/warehoused within the organization, so people do
not perceive any ‘failure value’ for unsuccessful projects, and therefore are less likely to
experiment/explore/connect with their work on a personal level (negative impact on intrinsic
motivation).
Supervisory encouragement can support creativity when managers serve as role models, persevering
through tough problems as well as encouraging collaboration and communication within the team
(enhances all three components of the creative process).

Organizational support. Creativity is truly enhanced when the entire organization supports it
(monetary rewards make people feel as if they are being controlled, and insufficient recognition and
rewards for creativity can spawn negative feelings within an organization).
An organization's leaders can support creativity by
• mandating information sharing and collaboration
o Expertise: the more often people work together, the more knowledge they will have
o Creative thinking: same as expertise
o Intrinsic motivation: information sharing, and collaboration heighten people's
enjoyment of work
• ensuring that political problems do not fester
o Expertise: politics get in the way of open communication, obstructing the flow of
information
o Creative thinking: political problems take peoples’ attention away from work
o Intrinsic motivation: increases when people are aware that those around them are
excited by their jobs. When political problems abound, people feel that their work is
threatened by others’ agendas
Can executives build entire organizations that support creativity?
Yes. Look at the Team Events Study. By following two dozen teams in seven companies every day
through the entire course of a creative project, they had a window into the details of what happened
as the project progressed – or failed to progress.
Fostering creativity is in the hands of managers as they think about, design, and establish the work
environment. Creativity often requires that managers radically change the ways in which they build
and interact with work groups. When creativity is killed, an organization loses a potent competitive
weapon: new ideas. It can also lose the energy and commitment of its people. You have to make a
conscious effort to support creativity. The result can be a truly innovative company where creativity
doesn't just survive but actually thrives.

De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & Baas, M. (2010). Creativity in Individuals and Groups:
Basic Principles with Practical Implications, In: D. De Cremer, R, Van Dick, & J.K.
Murnighan, Social Psychology and Organizations, New York: Routledge (pp. 297-319). *
Creativity is defined as the generation of ideas, problem solutions, or insights that are novel and
appropriate.
Innovation is defined as the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or
organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption,
designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization or wider society.
Distinctions between creativity and innovation:
1. Creativity requires the idea, insight, or solution to be appropriate, defined as ‘fitting the
problem’. Innovations necessitate the idea to advance the individual(s). Innovation requires
individuals and groups to overcome a number of ‘implementation barriers’.
2. Creativity calls for an idea that is new and original. Innovation requires something to be new
to the implementing unit
Dual pathway to creativity model Creative performance is often assessed using three indicators
(dimensions of creative performance, but not necessarily highly correlated):
1. Fluency: the generated number of nonredundant ideas, insights, problem solutions, or
products.
2. Originality: (one of the defining characteristics of creativity), refers to the uncommonness or
infrequency of ideas, insights, problem solutions, or products that are being invented.
3. Flexibility: manifests itself in the use of different cognitive categories and perspectives and
the use of broad and inclusive cognitive categories.
To understand creative performance, De Dreu proposed the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model,
which defines creative performance in terms of the number and originality of ideas, insights, and
solutions. Fluency and originality can be achieved through
(1) flexible thinking, set breaking, and divergent processing of information; through
(2) persistent analytical probing and systematically and incrementally combining elements and
possibilities or through
(3) some combination of cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence.

• The flexibility route captures set breaking and the use of flat associative hierarchies.
• The persistence rout captures the notion that creative fluency and originality need hard
work, perseverance, and the deliberate, persistent, and in-depth exploration of a few
cognitive categories or perspectives. Persistence will manifest itself in the generation of
many ideas within a few categories within-category fluence, or in longer time on task.
Activating moods can be positively (happy) or negatively toned (anger/fear). Similarly, deactivating
moods can have positive (relaxed) or negative (sad) hedonic tone. According to DPCM activating
moods lead to higher creative performance than deactivating moods, but how depends on the
hedonic tone. A positive feeling engenders cognitive flexibility (more creativity), and a negative
feeling engenders cognitive persistence (bottom-up way of processing information).
Value-from-fit theory: people derive value from the regulatory fit that they experience when their
engagement in an activity sustains their goal orientation, mood or interests regarding that activity.
(i.e.: sad/delibarte and happy/intuitive > sad/intuitive and happy/deliberate)
Fit rather than nonfit produces positive feelings and a sense of engagement that constitutes flow,
which in turn facilitates cognitive flexibility and persistence which produces more creativity.
Group-level creativity and innovation
Motivated Information Processing in Groups (MIP-G) Model assumes that individual group
members search and process information and that through communication individual-level
information processing becomes integrated at the group level, where it affects other indivdiuals in
the group and gets distorted and ignored or analyzed deliberately.
Information processing can be shallow and heuristic, or deliberate and systematic. The extent to
which systematic information processing emerges depends on group members’ epistemic
motivation, their willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich, and accurate
understanding of the world, including group task or decision problem at hand.
Epistemic motivation is assumed to be higher among individuals with high openness to experience.
Also among individuals who are either high in their need for structure and aversion of ambiguity (also
in groups populated by individuals like this).
EM raised by EM reduced by
Making people accountable for the decision- Time pressure
making process
Preference diversity (people realize there are Preference homogeneity
different opinions and become more motivated
to engage in systematic processing)
Conflict related threat
Social motivation refers to the individual’s preference for outcome distributions between oneself
and other group members and can be pro-self (concerned with own outcomes) or prosocial
(concerned with joint outcomes and fairness). Can be trait (more agreeable is more prosocial) or
state based (happy people are more prosocial).
MIP-G says that social and epistemic motivation codetermine group-level information processing,
judgments, and decisions. Collective success is most likely in groups in which high levels of epistemic
motivation are coupled with high levels of prosocial motivation. Indeed, cooperative groups make
better decisions when members are accountable to the process, or when a critical mindset is
induced.

Prosocial Pro-self
Focus on harmony, fairness, and collective Focus on power and personal success, process
success, process information in such way that information in such way that it benefits their
these outcomes are fostered personal success
MIP-G and Group creativity

At group level similar results as the ones in the individual level have been reported. They also
uncovered that teams with transformational leaders and greater educational specialization
heterogeneity exhibited greater team creativity. Groups can be expected to become more creative as
the average epistemic motivation in the group is enhanced.
The creativity-promoting effect of EP can be reversed when group members feared making errors.
Creativity was also reduced when group members were concerned about social face and reputation.
Group creativity may be severely hurt when the group climate is characterized by interpersonal
competition, undue criticism, power struggle, and self-preserving, defensive tendencies (so prosocial
motivation is needed). Social and epistemic motivation may be the critical mediators between group
creativity and antecedent conditions such as time pressure, mood states, and group composition.
MIP-G and Group Innovation

Given that preference diversity activates and enhances epistemic motivation among majority
members, it follows that minority dissent (opinion that deviates from the ‘norm’) has the potential to
stimulate group creativity and innovation, especially when groups have a prosocial, psychologically
safe climate and when they had high levels of participation in decision making. Team functional
heterogeneity promoted group innovation when there was a participative rather than directive
leadership style.

Amabile, T.M. & Pratt, M.G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity
and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
We view creativity and innovation as different parts of essentially the same process, when innovation
is understood as organic (arising from activities within the organization) and not as externally-
acquired innovative products or services (arising from mergers and acquisitions).The componential
model: see figure 1
Creativity: the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals
working together (fuzzy front end of innovation).
Innovation: the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization.
• Both definitions are grounded in the assumption that creativity and innovation are subjective
constructs, socially bound by historical time and place.
• These definitions are value-free. In order for creative ideas within organizations to promise
constructive outcomes (deemed as such by social consensus) once they are successfully
implemented, they must be linked to a socially positive system of values, morals, and ethics.
Four discoveries (after the componential model):
1. Creativity is viewed more dynamically: as comprising cycles of creativity

2. The progress principle: the discovery that work progress is a major determinant of
psychological states that facilitate creative behavior.
3. The importance of emotions in creativity
4. Integration of insights into the potential role of extrinsic motivation
A brief overview of some of the major theoretical statements that followed the componential model:
This current article uses the articles in the table above to improve the componential model:
The revised model – the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation – builds on
insights from these post-1988 creativity and innovation theories. The writers of this article decided to
focus primarily on revising certain aspects of the creativity portion of the componential model,
although the revised model will also propose some updating to the innovation portion.
Creativity and innovation in organizations. The original theory rested on two key, closely related
assumptions, which also apply to the revised theory.
1. The model assumes a high-level isomorphism between what's needed for individual
creativity and what's needed for organizational innovation, because both produce something
new. For both processes, three components are needed:
a. Basic resources or raw materials
b. A set of processes or skills for combining them in new ways
c. A driver
2. The model assumes that individual creativity and organizational innovation are inextricably
linked. Specifically, the creativity of individuals and teams feeds organic innovation within
organizations.
a. At the same time, features of the organization, including managerial practices, feed
(or starve) individual and team creativity. The two systems are highly
interdependent.

Two central constructs in the model:
1. A. Intrinsic motivation principle of creativity: people can be intrinsically motivated toward a

task, by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself.
B. Extrinsic motivation principle of creativity: by pressures such as deadlines or positive
motivators such as incentives and recognition.
2. Social environment (work environment) influences creativity in a number of ways

o highest levels of leadership (teams and individuals)
An individual creativity is affected by coworkers’ everyday attitudes and
behaviours.
o structures and policies
o the values
Individual and organizational components:
1. Individual level:
a. the driver is intrinsic motivation to do the task
b. The raw materials are the skills in the task domain (expertise and knowledge). Skills
in multiple domains may be necessary for the most novel and useful ideas.
c. One's expertise or factual knowledge about the domain, technical skills for doing
work and advancing one's knowledge in the domain, and special domain-relevant
talents.
The processes and skills for combining these raw materials in new ways are creativity
relevant processes (cognitive styles, perceptual styles, and thinking skills, personality
process, traits, and characteristics, and persistent, energetic work styles).
2. Organizational level:
a. The driver is the motivation to innovate, the basic orientation of the organization
toward innovation. A true organizational motivation to innovate is marked by a bias
toward:
i. clear-eyed risk-taking
ii. a genuine openness to new ideas
iii. a system for developing creative ideas
iv. an offensive strategy of leading the organization’s industry into the
future
b. The raw materials are resources in the task domain, which include everything the
organization has available to aid creative work in a targeted area
c. The processes or skills for combining these raw materials in new ways are skills in
innovation management
i. Goal setting that is sufficiently clear to direct work toward the ultimate
strategic aims of the organization, but sufficiently loose to allow individuals
and teams the autonomy to explore for truly new ideas.
ii. Work assignments that are matched well to individuals’ interests and
provide positive challenge
iii. Open communication systems within the organization
iv. Frequent, constructive and supportive feedback on creative efforts

v.Equitable and generous rewards and recognition for good creative efforts
(regardless of outcome)
vi. An absence of unnecessary layers of hierarchy
vii. Supportive collaboration across teams etc
The organizational innovation process:
Stages:
1. The agenda setting stage. Involves identifying the goal to be attained or the problem to be
solved. Can be initiated by a strategic imperative of the organization, or by something
outside the usual strategic planning process (e.g. a crisis).
a. Success depends on the first organizational component, the motivation to innovate.
This motivation is manifest, at this stage, in organizational leaders’ behaviors
concerning innovation.
2. The stage setting stage. Involves preparing for a successful process. It involves stating broad
goals for the project, gathering resources, and establishing the work context for the project.
a. Success depends on two of the organizational components, resources in the task
domain and skills in innovation management.
3. The producing ideas stage. Involves generating possibilities. It consists solely of the results of
the completed creative processes of individuals or small groups working on the project.
a. Success depends not only on the foundation laid (stage 1 and 2), but also on what is
done with those ideas afterwards (stage 4).
4. The testing and implementing the ideas stage. Consists of evaluating possibilities. It involves
all relevant areas of the organization in evaluating the ideas, and fully developing one of
those ideas.
a. Success depends on the organizational components of resources in the task domain
and skills in innovation management.
5. Outcome assessment stage. It is here that the organization makes decisions based on the
results of stage 4. A key element is the feedback loop, whereby the assessment could lead
back to an earlier stage of the process.
The individual creative process.

The stages of the creative process can be described in the same terms as those used for the
innovation process. (1) The processes apply to all degrees of creativity and innovation, from very low
to very high. The ultimate degree of creativity or innovation depends on the strength of the
components that feed into the relevant process and the extent to which each stage of the relevant
process is fully realized. (2) The sequences described in these processes are stylized, idealized. Many
variations of these sequences are possible, because creativity is often an improvisational process
requiring frequent shifts in response to new information and changing conditions. (3) It is not only
possible but likely that multiple iterations (loops) through the entire process will be involved, for
both creativity and innovation.
Stages:
1. Task presentation stage. It involves identifying the goal or problem.

a. An individual’s strong intrinsic motivation can kick off the process (e.g. by being
intrigued), or it can be started by an external source (e.g. an assignment).
2. Preparation stage. Involves preparing for a successful process.
a. For building the knowledge, skills, and specific information necessary to tackle the
problem (if this is already high the stage can be quite brief).
3. Idea generation stage. Involves generating possibilities for solving the problem or meeting
the goal.
a. Depends primarily on two individual creativity components:
i. Creativity-relevant processes (skills in creative thinking)
ii. Task motivation (intrinsic)
4. Idea validation stage. Where possibilities are evaluated. Involves checking ideas against
criteria for the task and criteria in the domain more generally, to ensure the usefulness of the
idea emerging from the third stage.
a. Depends on the individual’s skills in the task domain.
5. Outcome assessment stage. This is where decisions are made based on the results of the
fourth stage. Here is a feedback loop that is often activated at the end of the fifth stage.
The dynamic componential model

New linkages:
1. Individual creativity does not enter into the organizational innovation process until the third
stage (fuzzy middle part)
2. The components of individual creativity influence the individual creative process, but the
organizational components have a dual influence (on the organizational innovation process
and the individual creativity components)
3. The individual motivation component is subject to more influences
4. Any of the organizational components can influence any of the individual components. Also,
the work environment could influence the success of the individual (or group) creative
process by (e.g.) truncating a project before the individual (or group) has had the chance to
move from idea generation to idea validation.
New critical psychological factors

These can facilitate or undermine the creative process.
1. A progress loop
2. Meaningful work and work orientations
3. Affect
4. New insights into motivation

The progress principle:
Of all the work events that appear repeatedly on days of people’s most positive subjective
experiences, the single most prominent is making progress in meaningful work (which can be
individual, team, or organizational, as long as the individua is aware of it). In contrast, setbacks and
failures are the most prominent work events on days of people’s most negative subjective
experiences.
Intrinsic motivation has positive effects on progress. There is a causal directionality from progress to
increased intrinsic motivation and from setback to decreased intrinsic motivation. The mechanism by
which progress should increase intrinsic motivation is self-efficacy, the basic human drive toward
seeing oneself as capable of carrying out activities required to achieve desired goals. This
bidirectional causality is termed the progress loop and can be responsible for virtuous cycles
whereby intrinsic motivation and progress in creative work fuel each other unless and until one is
interrupted by an external shock.
Thus:
1) Progress (partial success) in the creative process increases intrinsic motivation, which increases
the probability that the individual will re-engage with the problem and continue the search for a
creative solution.
2) The probability of a novel solution should be increased in the next iteration, because intrinsic
motivation has a prominent role in idea generation.
3) Enhanced intrinsic motivation should directly or indirectly enhance every stage of the creative
process, leading to solutions that are both novel and useful.
Psychological safety is a shared sense in the group that it is acceptable to fail and to make mistakes,
because those failures and mistakes are treated as opportunities to learn and improve, without
derision of the individuals involved. In this case failure can lead to increased intrinsic motivation and
re-engagement in the creative process. This is only the case when there are high levels of
psychological safety.
Events in the work environment can directly facilitate or impede progress (called catalysts and
inhibitors). Each of these can be moderated by managerial behavior, particularly the behavior of
immediate supervisors, by clarifying goals, securing necessary resources, welcoming new ideas, and
helping team members while granting them considerable autonomy (which led to high intrinsic
motivation). This is called the oasis effect.

The broader role of meaningful work in creativity
Progress influences people most strongly when the work itself is meaningful. Four main linkages:
1. The role of meaningful work in sustaining the creative process via its effect on intrinsic
motivation
2. The role of meaningful work in contributing to and sustaining the progress loop
3. The mediating role of meaningful work in the relationship between organizational leaders’
statements and actions about innovation and the creative process
4. The critical role of work orientations in explaining the effects of leaders’ innovation-related
statements and actions and progress loops
Meaningful work: work that is perceived as positive and significant in some way. This does not mean
however, that people always find it pleasurable. It also might be viewed meaningful by one person,
but not by the other (in the eye of the beholder).
Meaningful work can enhance creativity when:
1. It is intrinsically motivating, so it is argued that meaningful work influences the creative

process through this.
2. By strengthening the progress loop and, thus, increasing persistence in a creative endeavor,
in the progress loop (progress principle) and in subsequent loops.
a. An important aspect of the moderating effect that progress in meaningful work has
on persistence in creative work in general, is the role that meaningful work can have
in strengthening the ‘staying power’ of the progress loop in the face of failure.
Justification perspective argues that meaningfulness is created by the ability to
provide a justification of why one’s work is worth doing (failure just means learning
about it).
3. By mediating the relationship between organizational leaders’ statements and actions
about innovation and intrinsic motivation. If people do not see innovative or creative work as
meaningful, it seems unlikely that leaders’ statements and actions about the importance of
innovation will be motivating (and the other way around).
4. Through the concept of ‘work orientations’. These are internalized evaluations about what
makes work worth doing. They are akin to our own personal ‘accounts’ about how we see
our work and what we see as valuable in our work.
We believe that work orientations are likely to be associated with creativity in at least three ways:
1. Work orientation influences the creative process primarily through motivation

2. Whether an employee views organizational leaders’ statements about the importance of
innovation as meaningful will depend in large part on how that employee approaches work
3. Work orientations may influence persistence and the degree to which individuals persevere
in the progress loop- though some orientations are likely to be more helpful in that regard
than others.
Affect and creativity
Despite the lack of clarity in the findings, It is clear that the creative process is suffused with affect;
many psychological and organizational behavior studies have shown links between affect and
creativity, and there are also probable links between affect and both progress and meaningful work.
For this reason, affect belongs in the new model:

1. Affect can arise from a number of sources both outside of and within the individual engaged
in creative work. Also, the outcome can induce affect. In addition, they suggest that the work
environment can influence and individual’s affect, and meaningful work can lead to positive
affect.
2. Positive affect, negative affect, and ambivalent affect can all have a positive influence on
individual creativity, but to varying degrees and at different stages of the creative process.
Positive affect has the more consistent beneficial impact on individual creativity, at least
within the range of emotions experienced in organizational settings. They believe that
positive affect primarily influences individual creativity via its effects on two components,
intrinsic motivation and creativity relevant processes and, in turn, those components’
positive effects on the novelty of the ultimate outcome at stages 1 and 3.
3. Positive affect should impact intrinsic motivation because it has a motivational function.
Therefore, positive affect is most likely to positively influence stage 1 and 3. Positive affect
also impact creativity-relevant processes because it leads to a broadening of cognitive
associations (which in turn increase the novelty of responses in stage 3).
4. Negative and ambivalent affect are most likely to have their facilitative impact at stages 2
and 4 of the individual creative process, primarily by improving the usefulness or
appropriateness of the ultimate outcome. Negative affect can motivate people to engage in
the more detail-oriented, analytical, critical thinking that is necessary for gathering the right
information and resources (stage 2), and checking newly-generated ideas against task criteria
(stage 4).
The motivation for creativity
Two modifications to the intrinsic motivation principle:
1. Positive effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity is enhanced in individuals who have a

‘calling’ or ‘service’ work orientation, when the work involves service to others.
2. Motivational synergy: certain types of extrinsic motivation can have harmonious effects with
intrinsic motivation in stimulating creativity. Two mechanisms which likely have additive
effects with intrinsic motivation:
1. Informational motivators are more supportive of intrinsic motivation than controlling
ones. Any extrinsic factors that provide information and support a person’s sense of
competence without undermining that person’s sense of self-determination would
be synergic extrinsic motivators and should positively add to intrinsic motivation
and creativity. By contrast, controlling motivators inhibit self-determination and
undermines the intrinsic motivation necessary for creativity (extrinsic rewards may
be perceived differently by individuals).
2. Motivation-work cycle match: synergistic extrinsic motivators are likely to serve
their speical facilitative function only at certain stages of the creative process.
Extrinsic motivation of the synergistic type might be particularly conducive to those
stages that contribute most to the usefulness of the ideas (stage 2 and 4)
Revised intrinsic motivation principle: intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity; controlling

extrinsic motivation is detrimental to creativity, but informational or enabling extrinsic motivation
can be conducive, particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high.
Dynamism in the dynamic componential model

The motivation component is even more crucial in the revised model: it is the most dynamic. It is the
most easily subject to change in the shortest timespan. The additions of progress, affect, and
meaningful work – as well as a deeper understanding of motivation underlying creative work –
render our model more dynamic. Progress, meaningfulness, and affect are interconnected in various
ways and are all connected to motivation. Thus, each may trigger and reinforce the others. In doing
so, they can serve to strengthen or inhibit the creative process overall.
So, the revised process is more dynamic than the original because it predicts that creativity can still
emerge no matter what the initial outcome of the creative process: success, failure, or even progress.
Individuals and groups may go back and forth between stages, especially when they are receiving
feedback from others (creativity is not linear). Moreover, subsequent ideas and products may build
from each other. Thus, we speculate that the dynamics described here may characterize both single
episodes of creativity and the larger creative processes of which they are a part off, catalyzing (or
inhibiting) creative persistence within and between creative episodes.

Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative
collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-
500.
In all current research about creativity, the focus has rested squarely on the individual, highlighting
individual cognitive processing, stable individual difference, and the effects of the external
environment on the individual. Relatively little attention has been paid to team level creative
synergy, in which ideas are generated by groups instead of being generated by one mind.
RQ: What turns collections of creative individuals into creative collectives, where particular
interactions yield creative insights, yet those insights cannot be attributed to particular individuals?
Creativity in organizations
Creative solutions are built from the recombination of existing ideas. This perspective looks at how
creative moments represent the confluence of old ideas.
Cognitive psychologists offer insights into how the creative process happens in the moments when
individuals solve problems that may be applied to the collective level. This research describes how
individuals facing problematic situations find solutions through a process of analogical reasoning, of
trying to make sense of a new situation by relating it to a more familiar one. This occurs when an
individual recognizes similarities in the new situation to old problems that he or she has learned in
the past. Thus, finding novel solutions is inherently linked to the issue of defining problems, which
definition of the problem is recalled identifies which set of solutions is considered relevant.
Organizations that span multiple industries are able to generate creative ideas by gaining access to
ideas in one domain and applying them in others. Firms’ innovative accomplishments result from
their work practices that transfer ideas over time and across projects. Similarly, innovation is
described as taking place in the communication and translation of knowledge from the individual to
the organization.
Collective cognition and the creative moment
Collective cognition a means for understanding how individuals working together perform effectively
in high-reliability organizations. This requires a focus that is at once on individuals and the collective,
since only individuals can contribute to a collective mind, but a collective mind is distinct from an
individual because it inheres in the pattern of interrelated activities among many people.
High-reliability organizations are characterized by their emphasis on avoiding errors rather than
pursuing efficiencies, where remaining mindful to deviations from expected events helps
organizations respond rapidly to potential problems.
Mindfulness describes the amount of attention and effort that individuals allocate to a particular
task or interaction. Participation in group interactions becomes a product not of membership or
presence within a group, but of the attention and energy that an individual commits to a particular
interaction with others in the group. It connects individual ideas and experiences in ways that both
redefine and resolve the demands of emerging situations.
Collective mind resides in the mindful interrelations between individuals in a social system. One
person’s action or comments, when considered by others, shapes theirs, which in turn shapes the
next. The original comment takes on new meanings, becoming creative, through the mindful
interactions of participants in the problemsolving process.
Precipitating moments of collective creativity in organizations
Collective creativity has occurred when social interactions between individuals trigger new
interpretations and new discoveries of distant analogies that the individuals involved, thinking alone,
could not have generated. This seems to emerge from within social interactions that brought

together those facing particular new problems and those with potentially useful past experiences.
Foursets of interrelating activites that play a role in triggering moments of collective creativity:
1. Help seeking: activities that occur when an individual who either recognizes or is assigned a
problematic situation actively seeks the assistance of others.
2. Help giving: represents the willing devotion of time and attention to assisting with the work
of others.
3. Reflective reframing: represents the mindful behaviors of all participants in an interaction,
where each respectfully attends to and builds upon the comments and actions of others.
4. Reinforcing: reflects those activities that subtly (sometimes not subtly) reinforce the
organizational values that support individuals as they engage in help seeking, help giving, and
reflective reframing, reinforcing happens as a direct consequence of engaging in these three
activities, as well as through more indirect actions within the organization.
These four activities provide a framework for understanding how moments of collective creativity are
triggered in organizations. As Figure 1 shows, help seeking, help giving, and reflective reframing are
all mutually reinforcing activities that usually appear in combination and activate one another.
Reflective reframing is the core of the creatively collective moment, as this activity is vital to drawing
out prior experience and combining it in new ways. Also, for individuals to become a creative
collective, help seeking and help giving must lead to moments of reflective reframing. However, we
also might expect that these activities sometimes occur in the absence of the others: People might
offer help without being asked, for instance. Finally, other reinforcing activities linked to
organizational structures such as reward and credit play a key role in our model, as they create a
shared belief in the importance of the three other activities.

Lecture 2:
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and
creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 201-212
The relationship between stressors and creativity has received considerable attention in literatures.
Yet the strength and form of this relationship remains unclear. Stressors are physical or psychological
conditions that necessitate and adaptive response. Creativity is a defined in a product-based
approach, creativity 8is the production of ideas, solutions or products that are novel and appropriate
in a given situation. According to theories, such as distraction arousal theory, stressors decrease
creative performance. Stress takes up resources, so there is less for other tasks. Some other theories
suggest that stressors increase creativity. Individuals may engage in focused problem-solving when
under stress. A third relationship form between stressors and creativity is a curvilinearly relationship.
stressors increase until a certain point, then it decreases creativity.
However, the effect of stressors on creativity may not be simply a function of how stressful a stressor
is. But also, the type of stress can have a different impact.
- Social-evaluative threats; occur when an aspect of self is or can be negatively judged by
others. (moderate level stress helps but high stress levels are negative0
- Uncontrollable: external influences. What happens outside makes the output and I cannot
change a thing. (decreases performance always)
This study indicates that the effect of stressors on creative performance depends on how stress
including the stressor is. In general, low stress-inducing situations caused increases in creative
performance, and high stress-inducing situations caused decreases in creative performance. More
specifically, it matters in what way the stressors may induce stress.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and
creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128
Given increasingly turbulent environments, high-end competition and unpredictable technological
chance, more and more managers are coming to realize that they should encourage their employees
to be creative. Creativity refers to the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or group
of individuals working together. Leadership is studied in its impact on creativity.
There are multiple different leadership styles. Transformational leadership is found to have mixed
results. However empowering leadership has not been studied a lot. Empowering leadership involves
sharing power with a view toward enhancing employees’ motivation and investment in their work.
Linking empowerment leadership and creativity needed three mechanisms.
1. Psychological empowerment: a psychological state that is manifested in four cognitions;
meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. (connection to intrinsic motivation).
2. Creative process engagement: employee involvement in creativity-related methods or
processes including problem identification, information searching and encoding and idea,
generation.
3. Intrinsic motivation
Controlling leadership is found to have a negative relationship with employee creativity, while
supportive leadership and creativity have a positive relationship. Leaders must encourage employee
motivation to solve problems. Empowering leadership involves highlighting the significance of the
work providing participation in decision making, conveying confidence that performance will be high
and removing bureaucratic constraints. These aspects are found to be relevant for creativity. One
thing to consider is that not every employee wants to be encouraged, of course when this is the case
empowerment leadership won’t have a positive influence on creativity. As a manager you need to
think about who and how much you want to encourage your employees.
Psychological empowerment is seen as an enabling process that enhances an employee’s task
initiation and persistence. There is a close relationship between psychological empowerment and
empowering leadership. However, we already saw that this differs for different people. Here comes
role identity theory. According to which individuals develop expectations regarding appropriate
behavior in various roles and internalize them as components of self or role identities (a self-vi9ew or
meaning). Empowerment role identity strengthens the relationship between empowering leadership
and psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment is positively related to intrinsic
motivation and to creative process engagement.

Leader encouragement of creativity strengthens the relationship between psychological

empowerment and creative process engagement.
Individuals intrinsic task motivation plays an important role in determining behaviors that may result
in creative outcomes. Intrinsic motivation makes the difference between what an individual can do
and what an individual will do. When individuals are intrinsically involved in their work, they are
more likely to devote all of their attention to the problems they encounter. Intrinsic motivation is
positively related to creative process engagement. Creative process engagement is positively related
to employee creativity. Intrinsic motivation is positively related to employee creativity.

Gevers, J. M., & Demerouti, E. (2013). How supervisors' reminders relate to

subordinates' absorption and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(6), 677-
69.
To stay competitive in today’s corporate society organizations must continuously develop high
quality innovative products and services. They need to be creative under the pressure of increasingly
thigh deadline. Whether and how does leadership relate to the work experiences and subsequent
creative performance of employees (namely task absorption). Task absorption also referred to as
timelessness, reflects a condition of concentrated activity that is believed to be highly beneficial for
creativity.
Prior research has shown that temporal reminders, provided by team leaders or exchanged among
team members positively relates to team performance also in terms of timeliness. Suggested is that
temporal reminders also play a role in shaping the work experiences and outcomes. Supervisors have
a complex role in striking the right balance between challenges and skills.
Supervisors have a complex role in striking the right balance between challenges and skills, also when
it comes to time. They should take notice of the individual differences that determine responses to
leadership.
Creativity refers to the production of ideas, products or procedures that are novel and potentially
useful and practical and is considered to be the starting point for innovation. Intrinsic motivation
enhances creativity. Extrinsic factors, such as deadlines and experienced time are believed to hamper
creativity.
Absorption reflects a condition where “one is fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s
work, whereby time passes quickly, and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work”.
Temporal reminders are used as a regulatory mechanism, to draw attention to the temporal aspects
of their task execution.
Pacing style reflects how individuals distribute their effort over time in working toward deadlines.
There are three common patterns.
1. Deadline action pacing: most of the effort late in task execution. (associated with
procrastination, risk seeking and deadline optimism).
2. Steady action pacing: during the task almost always exactly, the same effort. (associate with
planful work approaches, conscientiousness proactive personality time management and
priority focus).
3. U-shaped pacing: in the beginning and in the end a lot effort in middle non/low effort.
Timely reminders provide goal clarity, importance of task completion. Clear goals help for attention
and mobilize n-task effort and concentration.
Self-regulation also has a high role in absorption and creativity. Same for self-determination and
need for leadership, motivation and performance. This is all related to individual differences.
Limited studies have linked positive experiential stated and creativity from a between-person
perspective. However strong dynamic relationships between affect and creativity have b been found.
Controlling for general levels of absorption, weekly absorption and individual creativity will fluctuate
over time.
Results indicated that associations between supervisors’ temporal reminders and experienced task
absorption were stronger as subordinates reported stronger tendencies toward deadline pacing; the
association was weaker as employees reported stronger tendencies toward steady and/or U-shaped
action. Task absorption, in turn, related positively to individual creativity.

Lecture 3
Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & Elliott, S. (2018). The Skills Needed to Think
Creatively: Within-Process and Cross-Process Skills. In Roni Reiter-Palmon, Victoria L.
Kennel and James C. Kaufman (Eds.) Individual Creativity in the Workplace (pp. 129-
152). Academic Press
There are different definitions of creativity. One of the definitions is that: creativity is held to require
the production of high quality, original and elegant solutions to complex, novel, ill-defined or poorly
structured problems. Creative thinking requires domain-specific knowledge or expertise. But only this
is not enough, you also have to be able to think differently.
Creative thinking process: the production of high quality,
original, and elegant solutions to novel, complex, and ill-
defined problems depended on the ways people work with
domain-relevant knowledge. Eight core processes are
involved in most incidents of creative problem-solving.
These processes are held to operate sequentially with
people cycling back to an earlier process. Errors are held to
carry through all processes. Effective execution of each of
the processes makes a unique contribution to the
production of creative problem-solving. After each step
skills needed in that step are shortly explained.
1. Problem definition or problem construction:
conceptual combination and idea generation are
skills important for creative problem-solving.
Analysis skills must focus on critical constraints.
2. Information gathering: searching for information is
important, this means being analytical. Also
integrating facts and anomalies with personal
experience helps in this step.
3. Concept selection: organizing information. It was found that the most creative problem
solutions emerged when people illustrated coherent, workable, mental models which
considered both important concepts and moderators/mediators which conditioned the
impact of these variables on problem outcomes. skill in concept selection may depend not
only on having viable mental models and base concepts, but also on skill in considering and
working with complex relationships among concepts.
4. Conceptual combination and reorganization: creating new ideas. It was found that
production of high quality and original features on these conceptual combination problems
were strongly, positively, related to production of creative solutions to the marketing
problem. skill in identifying common features of concepts, a skill we would refer to as
commonality identification, is apparently critical to conceptual combination. conceptual
combination depends not only on commonality identification skill, but also on elaborative
skill in exploring and refining new concepts with respect to their implications for problem-
solving.
5. Idea generation: divergent thinking. Principle-based generation and contextual elaboration
appear to represent two key skills contributing to idea generation.
6. Idea evaluation: convergent thinking. Therefore, idea evaluation appears to depend on both
depth appraisal skill and skill in formulating strategies for compensating for deficiencies in
candidates’ ideas.
7. Implementation planning: large number of skills apparently contributing to implementation
planning. In creative efforts, however, plans do not always work out as expected. New

opportunities arise calling for opportunistic exploration and failures occur requiring
execution of backup plans. it seems reasonable to expect that both skill in opportunistic
exploration and backup planning would also contribute to creative problem-solving.
8. Adaptive solution monitoring, skill in identifying descriptive events to be monitored during
solution implementation contributes to effective execution of the solution monitoring
process, especially when accompanied by requisite adaptive capacity.
Cross-process skills: five skills exist that contribute to creative problem- solving across a number of
processes and a number of different domains:
(1) causal analysis strengthens peoples’ basic understanding of problems and thereby contributes to
the production of creative problem solutions. (2) forecasting, forecasts bade by experts can be quite
accurate and helps creative thinking. (3) error analysis, finding errors in potentially solutions helps to
find the right solutions. (4) applications analysis, (5) wisdom, needed to fully understand and check
for errors. You need to have wisdom about the underlying problems and processes. Although it is still
needed to look for creative solutions, so you need to have some wisdom, but you also need to look
at other parts.

Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy

of Management Executive, 17(1), 96-109. *
Several organizational changes and developments make creativity a valuable necessity for the new
economy and the organizations that inhabit it. Three reasons are especially important for the reason
to start being creative. First the abscense of hierarchy creates an opportunity for creativity. Second,
business is starting to be more and more competitive. Third, cocreation starts to be more used, here
the customers are more central.
Creative realism: creativity is not always wild and strange ideas. (look at picture below). The best of
all worlds is to get ideas in the upper left quadrant. Conservative idealism might be the worst, an
extension of a common idea that is unrealistic to begin with. The efforts that people make to
generate ideas in the creative realism quadrant sometimes ensure that they won’t end up there. The
route to creative useful ideas is often indirect and non-obvious.
You can measure creativity in three ways:

1. Flexibility: how many different types of ideas can a person generate?
2. Fluency: how many different ideas can a person generate?
3. Originality: how unique or original are the ideas?
There is always a striking correlation among the three measures, such that the people who get the
highest scores on originality also get high scores on flexibility and fluency. Flexibility is found to be
the driver.
Also, convergent and divergent thinking are part of creative thinking. Divergent is used for coming up
with ideas and convergent thinking for evaluating these ideas. Teams however tend to focus on
convergent thinking as the expense of divergent thinking. But the individuals excel at divergent
thinking. Individuals are more creative, but teams can make better decisions.

Group brainstorming leads to the generation of fewer ideas than comparable number of solitary
barnstormers. Four major problems stifle the brainstorming in teams:
1. Social loading: the tendency for people in a group to slack off. Not work as hard in a group as
they would have done individually.
2. Conformity: afraid that coworkers don’t like their ideas. Or liking the idea of the boss, just
because he is the boss. This occurs when group members are concerned that others in the
group will be critical of their suggestions.
3. Production blocking: interruption of the flow because team members present their ideas
while you are still thinking of ideas. It is difficult for group members to listen to and process
ideas generated by group members while they are generating own ideas.
4. Downward norm setting: the performance of people working within a group converges over
time. The lowest workers in a group tend to pull down the average. So, the least productive
worker is leading.
What goes on during a typical brainstorming session? The four problems above cause people to:
experience inhabitations, anxiety and self-presentational concerns. Reduction of productivity.
Participate in social rituals, such as telling stories, repeating ideas and giving positive feedback.
Performance to low. Conform in terms of ideas and idea generation.
Brainstorming teams have no idea that these behaviors occur. The companies who use brainstorming
groups are and the brainstorming groups are their own worst enemies: they prey to the illusion that
they function effectively. Teams can take actions towards the most common problems.
- Diversity in a team: different perspectives. Heterogenous teams were more likely to engage
in divergent thinking.
- Analogical reasoning: the actor of applying a concept or idea from a particular domain to
another domain. Applying previously learned knowledge to new situations is surprisingly
difficult for most managers.
- Brainwriting: at various key points in time during a brainstorming session, group members
will cease all talking and write down their own sides silently. Brainwriting groups consistently
generate more and better ideas than groups who follow their natural instincts
- Nominal group technique: variation of brainwriting; it starts with a brainwriting session. After
discussing each person individually ranks all ideas.
o Delphi technique is also a nominal group technique: group members do not interact
in a face-to-face fashion at any point. The entire process is guided by surveys. A topic
is sent out, everyone responds individual, the leader collects everything and sent out
again, until the problem is solved. This needs maximum structure and ensures equal
input.
- Creating on organizational memory: a library of all ideas that already are looked into, so the
organization does not waste time with old ideas.
- Trained facilitators: facilitators can teach teams to share ideas without extensive social
interaction.
- High benchmarks: setting benchmarks helps teams to know which direction they need to go
and what they need to do. The benchmark cannot be too high, because than performance
reduces.
- Membership change: groups where a member exits or enters during the process, generate
more ideas and more different kind of ideas. The presence of a newcomer can motivate old-
timers to revisit their task strategies and develop new and improved methods for performing
group tasks.
- Electronic brainstorming:
- Build a playground: the basic idea is to break with old ideas about what it means to be at
work. The playground is different from the regular office. They are designed to foster
creativity and involve a lot of fun elements.


Lecture 4
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtually: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495.
Virtual teams are defined as geographically dispersed, electronically dependent, dynamic or
comprising divers’ members working remotely and grow in number and importance. These teams
make it easier to acquire and apply knowledge to critical tasks. A dynamic structure and diverse
participation can enable creative and flexible responses. These teams aere central to innovation, the
collective process of making sense of new and diverse information and incorporating this knowledge
into new methodologies, products and services. Teams must have a shared feeling of accountability.
Bringing people with the required knowledge and skills together virtually provides no guarantee that
they will be able to work effectively and innovate across context.
The term virtual has different meanings in different studies. Teams that are
- Geographically dispersed (consisting of members spread across more than one location),
- mediated by technology (communicating using electronic tools such as e-mail or instant
messaging),
- structurally dynamic (in which change occurs frequently among members, their roles, and
relationships to each other),
- or nationally diverse (consisting of members with more than one national background).
Early research on virtual work defined it as: “work carried out in a location remote from the central
offices or production facilities, where the worker has no personal contact with coworkers but is able
to communicate with them electronically”. Nowadays researchers switch from this to the focus that
most teams can be seen as virtual teams what is multidimensional, however the level of complexity
and dimension differs between teams.
- Cohen and Gibson (2003); two dimensions: electronic dependence and geographic dispersion
- Griffith et al. )2003); three dimensions: level of technology support, percent of time apart on
task and degree of physical distance.
- Gilson, Maynard and Martins (2004): geographical dispersion, use of computer-mediated
communication, temporality, and diversity.
Summarizing across this growing literature, the most common characteristics investigated are
geographic dispersion and electronic dependence. It is often assumed that teams that are more
geographically distributed are also more electronically dependent, and thus more “virtual”.
Virtual innovation The ability of teams to innovate depends on how well they generate, import,
share, interpret and apply technological and market knowledge, particularly of local markets,
economies and customers. That knowledge is a combination of information, experience, context,
interpretation and reflection. This must be openly shared with other networks.
Hypotheses:
1. Geographic dispersion is negatively related to team innovation.
2. Electronic dependence is negatively related to team innovation.
3. National diversity is negatively related to team innovation.
4. National diversity is negatively related to team innovation.
5. A psychologically safe communication climate reduces the negative effects of (a) geographic
dispersion, (b) electronic dependence, (c) dynamic structure, and (d) national diversity on
team innovation.

Study 1 indicated that the negative direct effects of geographic dispersion (H1), electronic
dependence (H2), and national diversity (H4) on innovation were readily apparent in the contextual
analysis of the interviews, while the effect of dynamic structure (H3) on innovation was equivocal.
Findings also provide preliminary support for the argument that a psychologically safe
communication climate mitigates the negative effects of geographic dispersion (H5a) and national
diversity (H5d) on innovation, with less clear support for the other proposed moderating
relationships.
In contrast with Study 1, the relationship between national diversity and electronic dependence is
non-significant, while the relationships between geographic dispersion and electronic dependence
and between dynamic structural arrangements and electronic dependence are positive and
significant. The relationship between national diversity and dynamic structure is also positive and
significant. As expected, each of the elements of virtuality is significantly and negatively correlated
with innovation, while psychologically safe communication climate is significantly and positively
related to innovation.
The two studies we conducted are among the first to examine comprehensively and simultaneously
the features of new work designs that have proliferated rapidly. In doing so, we uncovered numerous
important findings that have implications for future theory and research in several areas:
conceptualization and theory pertaining to vitality, social network theory, and theories of
communication climate and psychological safety.

Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering
team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996.
Creative work is frequently carried out in teams. Whenever members of these teams differ in their
task-relevant perspective, knowledge the creativity is predicted higher. But there is no evidence for
this. This study looks at the teams and gives a perspective of understanding the teammates’
thoughts, motives and feelings. The different perspectives of the teammates do not automatically
entail higher elaboration, this requires that the members invest in cognitive energy.
Team creativity is the joint novelty and usefulness of ideas regarding products, processes and
services. This is virtal for organizations and creative work is frequently done in teams.
Potential benefits of diverse perspectives: this brings a wider pool of perspectives and knowledge to
the table. Diversity is a team characteristic denoting the extent to which members differ with regard
to a given attribute. There are multiple different kinds of diversity.
- Deep-level diversity vs Surface level diversity:
Surface-level diversity includes traits that are
highly visible to us and those around us, such
as race, gender, and age. Researchers believe
that people pay attention to surface diversity
because they are assumed to be related to
deep-level diversity, which includes values,
beliefs, and attitudes.
- Functional diversity: job related.
Moderators of the diversity effect: the most well-known framework for this is CEM, this integrates
the social categorization and information- decision making perspective on diversity and outlines a set
of moderators of diversity’s effect on team outcomes. According to this teams benefit from diversity
when members differ in task-relevant perspectives and knowledge and engage in information
elaboration. Next to this support is found for task characteristics as moderators of the effect of
different viewpoints on team creativity.
The moderating role of perspective taking Perspective taking is a cognitive process through which an
observer tries to understand, in a nonjudgmental way, the thoughts, motives and/or feelings of a
target as well as why they think and/or feel the way they do.
Perspective taking can facilitate social interaction. It is mostly considered as an individual-level
cognitive process. However, there are arguments that perspective taking in teams can acquire the
qualities of an emergent group process for which members show high levels of convergence. It might
also affect the likelihood that other members reciprocate. Perspective taking as an emergent team
process, helps teams to capitalize their diversity on creative tasks by fostering the sharing, discussion
and integration of diverse viewpoints and information.

Diverse perspectives come with differences in evaluative standards that may impair communication.
Taking others perspective entails considering their evaluative standards and may facilitate more
constructive appraisal of their ideas. This might have more effects for heterogeneous teams than for
homogeneous teams.
- Hypothese 1: Perspective taking moderates the effect of diversity of perspectives on team
creativity, such that diversity has a more positive effect on creativity when team members
engage in perspective taking than when they do not engage.
The difference in perspective taking between homogeneous and heterogeneous teams, might lead
team members to quickly recognize their shared information and viewpoints and in turn limit the
extent to which they are elaborated on. Research on distributed information suggests that when
information is fully shared, group discussion serves to establish that all members have the relevant
information. Perspective taking may accelerate this realization.
- Hypothese 2: Perspective taking moderates the effect of diversity of perspectives on
information elaboration such that diversity has a more positive effect on elaboration when
team members engage in perspective taking than when they do not engage.
Based on CEM, elaboration is seen as the key mediator of the interaction between diversity and
perspective taking on team creativity. However, an alternative team process for elaboration is task
conflict (defined as “disagreements among group members about the content of the task being
performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions”) these conflicts have
inconsistent effects on team creativity and innovation. Having additional task conflicts could brig
negative emotions which extra harms the creativity. The second process that promotes team
creativity is information sharing. This adds to the creativity relevant process and domain relevant
knowledge. However, sharing information alone does not necessarily lead to the positive creative
output. This a needed base for integration different viewpoints. Because sharing is not always
responsible for positive outputs we suggest that elaboration is a better variable for capturing the
processes of perspective taking.
- Hypothesis 3a: Information elaboration mediates in the interactive effect of diversity and
perspective taking on team creativity such that perspective taking moderates the effect of
diversity on information elaboration, which in turn has a positive effect on team creativity.
- Hypothesis 3b: The conditional indirect effect of diversity as moderated by perspective taking
on creativity through information elaboration is stronger than the indirect effect observed for
the alternative mediators of task conflict and information sharing.
Method We tested our hypotheses in a laboratory experiment using a 2 (diversity of perspectives:
diverse vs. homogeneous) x 2 (perspective taking: yes vs. no) between-groups design. The
partisxipants were observed while developing a creative plan.
Results the first hypothese was supported. The seccond hypothese however showed differences,
homogeneous teams who take perspective have less creative outputs than when they don’t take
perspectives. (see figure below). Hypothese 3a and 3b are also supported

Discussion The need to integrate different perspectives to achieve creative synergy points to the
other-referential process of perspective taking as a potent factor in explaining when and how diverse
teams perform more creatively. The findings support the hypothesized moderating role of
perspective taking on the effect of diversity on creativity and the proposed mediation of this
moderated effect through information elaboration.
Conclusion The importance of team creativity is widely recognized, yet our knowledge of how teams
optimally use their resources for higher creativity is limited. Our results provide an important step
toward building our understanding of this phenomenon to elaborate on their perspectives and
information to develop more relative solutions. In sum the findings suggest interesting avenues for
future research and useful implications for practitioners who seek to enhance their team’s creativity.

Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
the promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77-
89.
Can positive effects of team diversity outweigh the drawbacks of heterogeneity? This study looks at
this with the role of transformational leadership in managing teams that are demographically and
informally diverse. Transformational leadership has been described as being particularly important
given recent developments, such as fast changes, innovations and globalized competition.
The effects of diversity in teams are typically explained in the literature from an information-
decision-making perspective (positive effects) or from a similarity-attraction or social categorization
perspective (which predicts negative effects). Proposed is that transformational leadership has a dual
effect.
Diversity and team performance Diversity can be conceptualized as a characteristic of a social

grouping (i.e., a team, organization, or society) that reflects the degree to which there are objective
or subjective differences among people within the group. These differences can indicate either
separation (i.e., di- verging positions, opinions, or values), variety (i.e., heterogeneity with respect to
task-relevant categories that the group members belong to), or disparity (i.e., an unequal distribution
of valued resources). There is stil no fully understanding of which diversity aspects give a fully
positive influence on performance. Therefor more research is needed to examine when and how
different types of diversity either benefit or impede team performance.
Transformational leadership and team performance transformational leadership engages the full
person of the follower, including the higher needs and thereby enables him or her to perform
beyond expectations. It includes establishing an emotional bond between leader and follower.
Although many teams in less hierarchical organizations are being granted more autonomy and
control over their activities, leadership is bound to remain important, because even self-managing
teams are seldom afforded full decision-making authority, and key decisions remain in the hands of
those individuals explicitly designated as leaders.
Transformational leadership as a moderator Organizations assemble heterogeneous teams in the
hopes that the pool of knowledge, skills and abilities will yield solutions superior to those attainable.
Teams must work together in a way that resources bought into the group are fully utilized toward
meeting. Leaders pay a key role in facilitating this process. Somech (2006) found that in
heterogeneous teams, participative leadership was positively related to team reflection, which in
turn facilitated team innovation, but negatively related to team in-role performance. Shin and Zhou
(2007) showed that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between diversity and
team creativity. The relationship of demographic and informational variety with team performance
depends on whether the potential positive effects of diversity are realized and, at the same time,
whether the potential negative effects of diversity are held in check.

- Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship of age, nationality, and

educational diversity with team performance, such that this relationship is positive when
levels of transformational leadership are high but negative or nonsignificant when levels of
transformational leadership are low.
Elaboration of task-relevant information as a mediator transformational leadership is assumed to
moderate the realtionship between diversity and the elaboration of task-relevant information. Active
steps must be taken to make sure the diversity is used positive. It cannot be taken for granted that
inidividuals share their information with teammates. Transformational leadership promotes the
internalization of the goals and values that underlie the collective cause. At the same time it
promotes considderation of all available task relevant resources in a team.
- Hypothesis 2: The elaboration of task-relevant information fully mediates the moderating
effect of transformational leadership on the relationship of age, nationality, and educational
diversity with team performance.
Collective team identification as a mediator collective team identification is positively associated
with the elaboration of task-relevant inforamtion. It is a emotional component of social
identification, which is a motivational force. People prefer to work with similair people. A leaders role
in diverse teams consists of emphasizing the potential advantages of variety and thus fostering
motivation. Transformational leadership should enhance collective team identification, however
there is no evidence that this is true. Uniting all members of a diverse team around shared objectives
and a common social identity could theoretically entail the danger that team members might simply
adopt the leader’s vision and repress their own views.
- Hypothesis 3: Collective team identification partially mediates the moderating effect of
transformational leadership on the relationship of age, nationality, and educational diversity
with the elaboration of task-relevant information.
Results no of the studied variable is found to have a significalntly correlation with either elaboration
of task-relevant information or collective team identification. Transormational leadership however
was positively related to both of these variables. No significant relationship was found between
transformational leaderhship and team performance.
When transformational leadership was high, team performance was significantly positively related to
diversity regarding nationality and educational background but, contrary to our expectatrions not
age diversity. Results indicated that the interactive effects of all three diversity dimensions with
transformational leadership on team performance were fully mediated by the elaboration of task-
relevant information. Simple slope analyses revealed that when transformational leadership was
high, collective team identification was positively related to diversity concerning age and
educational background but not nationality. Conversely, when transformational leadership was low,
collective team identification was negatively related to diversity with respect to nationality and
educational background and negatively but nonsignificantly related to age diversity.

Discussion transformational leaderhip is positively related to many important outcomes. Results

confirm that transformational leadership moderates the relationship of age, nationality, and
educational diversity with team performance. Both nationality and educational diversity were
positively related to team performance only when transformational leadership was high. These
relationships were nonsignificant when transformational leadership was low. Age diversity was not
significantly associated with team performance when transformational leadership was high, and it
was negatively associated with team performance when transformational leadership was low. Two
mediated moderation effects shed some light on how transformational leadership may exert
advantageous effects on the performance of diverse teams. First, the respective interactive effects of
age, nationality, and educational diversity on team performance were fully mediated by the
elaboration of task-relevant information. Second, results indicated that collective team identification
fully mediated the interactive effect of age diversity with transformational leadership and partially
mediated the interactive effect of educational diversity with transformational leadership on the elab-
oration of task-relevant information.

Lecture 5:
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project
stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1537-
1552.
Project based firms have to understand their stakeholders, the influences and devising engagement
strategies. A conceptual framework for characterizing and classifying project stakeholder landscapes
will be developed.
Introduction the literature on large engineering and infrastructure projects suggests that social
complexity (including stakeholders) is a keuy managerial challenge. NPD research also discusses the
challenges that projects have faced when interacting with stakeholders. How can project
stakeholders be fully understand? Prior research has paid limited attention to conceptualizing and
understandig the different types of stakeholders. The dominant mode to approach environments has
been through the hub-and-spoke model that emphasizes the management of single, independent
stakeholders.
How can project stakeholder landscape be conceptualized and what are its key dimensions? To
answer this question literature review is conducted. The project stakeholder lndscape is considered
to cover both the internal and external stakeholder environment.
- Internal stakeholders are stakeholders that are members of the project coalition and
therefor support the project. (primary stakeholders, business actors)
- External stakeholders: not members but people who might be affected by the project (non-
business stakeholders or secondary stakeholders)
Introduction to project stakeholder thinking stakeholder theory is the basic idea that an
organization has relationships with many constituentt groups and it can engender and maintain
support of these groups by considering and balancing their overall relevant intrests. The stakeholder
theory has eveolved into a legitimized organization theory, where stakeholders need to be
categorized and all have different stakeholder influence strategies. Organizations need to work on
networks and firm’s response strategies and stakeholder lifecycle models. The majority of project
stakeholder research has focused on the development of different types/tools and frameworks for
assessing the characteristics of stakeholders. However not on the strategies needed to work
effectively with stakeholders.
Stakeholders are: organizations or individuals who can somehow affect the achievement of the
project's objectives.
Methodology the analysis consists of two main stages, first the stage of the framework development
aftr that a more specific method of literature review, used to validate the framework.
Results: development of the conceptual framework different studies are looked into all providing
uss with edifferent dimenstions and variables. These are listed below.
- Geraldi et al (2011) project complexity in five dimensions: stuructural, uncertainty dynamics,
pace and socio political complexity.
- Bosch-Rekveldt et al (2011) project complexity in large engineering projects in three
dimensions: technical, organizational and environmental complesxity
- Ramasesh and Browning (2014) project complexity in two dimensions: project element and
relational complexity.
These studies provided the autors with a general landscape with four central dimensions: complexity
(including stakeholder element and stakeholder relationship complexity), uncertainty, dynamism and
the institutional context. Look at the table below:

1. Complexity: (the set of interrrelated elements)

a. Stakeholder element complexity:
i. The number of project stakeholders, the more stakholders a project has the
complexer it gets. The complexer it gets, the more resources a projects
needs to manage all stakeholders.
ii. Variety of project stakeholders and their goals: this is related to de
differences between different stakeholders. The impact of different
stakeholders are not equal eventhough in shape and size they might be
comparable (differences can be in power, legitimacy, urgency). Important to
look at the most slient and critical stakeholders.
iii. Stakeholders' internal complexity: relates to the multiplicity of goals and
diversity within a stakeholder organization. Members of a stakeholder
organization might all have diferent interests and needs.
b. Stakeholder relationship complexity
i. Number or relationships among stakeholders: deals with the
interconnectedness of stakeholders (links between the different
stakeholders of an organization). The more links between stakeholders, the
complexer and more unpredictable the system gets. Because it becomes
more likely that stakeholders form coalitions.
ii. Variety of relationships: different relationships require different strategies,
so if you have more kinds of relations, you will also need more strategies
what makes it more difficult to manage.
iii. Patterns of relationships: the number of ties per one stakeholde, the more
connections, the more central actor a stakeholder is.
iv. Relationships’ internal complexity: the complex relationships among project
organization and single stakeholders. One dyadic relationship between the
project and the stakeholder that features for example high institutional and
cultural distance challenging co-operation or strong controversies can
generate many more challenging stakeholder management situations than
several rather simple stakeholder relationships.

v. External stakeholder relationships: stakeholders that are not part of the

project coalition but are affected by the project or can affect it. This can have
a effect on the project.
2. Uncertainty a central element in the project risk manamgent literature. It basically means
that not everyting in projects is sure. Some things you don’t know how it works or what will
happen. It can have different reasons:
a. Lack of information that managers face with regard to stakeholders' attributes,
behaviors and interactions. This results in difficulties in indentifiy8ing key
stakeholders, emergent stakeholders and their behaviours. Also uncertainty in
stakeholders’ requirments and unpredictable interactions between stakeholders.
b. The experience of the project management with regard to stakeholders: managerial
characteristics are an important facgtor in stakeholdr management. So the lack of
experience can have a negative impact in the certainty.
c. Analyzability of the stakeholder environment: it might be just difficult to see all
stakeholders. So the visability to the stakeholder landscape might be very low.
d. Ambiguous informaiton concerning stakeholders: there are various interpretations of
the stakeholder landscape. The level of knowledge, resources and capabilities of
stakeholders make
3. Dynamism: can be understood as the system’s propensity to change. It is a fundamental
property of complex systems and an important element in stakeholder environments. There
are different aspects how dynamism can be explained:
a. Changes in stakeholders’ attributes (or positions toward the project)
b. Emergence of completely new stakeholder groups (or new or changed relationships
among stakeholders).
c. Changes in terms of appopriate ways of engaging stakeholders (for example through
laws, regulations or demands).
d. Changes in the stakeholders’ influence strategies (intensity of strategies).
4. Institutional context: interaction with institutional context significantly influences the way
projects are managed. Intstitutional environment can be devided in three elements
(regulatory, normative, cognitive elements).
a. The concept of stakeholders' local embeddedness, referring to the number and
content of the relationships between the project's stakeholders and the local actors,
has been suggested as a measure to understand institutional influence through local
stakeholders in projects.
b. The existence of formal or informal legitimized structures and processes for engaging
stakeholders has also been brought up in the project stakeholder management
literature as a salient characteristic of the institutional context.
c. Institutional environments may also vary with regard to what types of stakeholder
behaviors and influence strategies are viewed as acceptable.
d. the multiplicty of institutional environments of a project is also a relevant factor.
Large, international projects typically face multiple countries' institutional
environments or different institutional environments within one country
e. factors related to the complexity of stakeholders' interpretation process by which
the stakeholders make sense and build their perception of the project and its
stakeholder management may also have implications for the challenge of managing
stakeholders.
Discussion the framework and its identified key dimensions bring up various interesting insights and
areas that have not been combined explicitly in previous project stakeholder studies. The systematic
literature review revealed that in particular, the dimensions of uncertainty, dynamism and
institutional context in our framework have been largely underpresented in previous accounts of
project stakeholder management, while much of the focus has been addressed to stakeholders'
characteristics and goal

Lecture 6
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leaders behavior
in work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
Introduction
Many organization outcomes, like creativity and innovation, do not only depend on strategy and
resources, it also depends on the mind of employees. It depends on individual characteristics and on
how they perceive the work environment. Of all forces that can change this interpretation leadership
is one of the most important. Leaders evaluate, facilitate, empower, engage and help with accessing
information or knowledge. Perceptions of research presents that perceptions are created by leaders.
There is little known about the way the environment arises. This exploratory study investigated
leader behaviors related to perceived leader support, encompassing both instrumental and
socioemotional support.
Leader support and creativity
Besides the impact of leadership on creativity, it has generally not been treated as a particularly
important influence. The three major organizational creativity theories 1. Componential theory, 2.
Interactionist theory and 3. Multiple social domains, all include work environment as influence. Only
the first theory includes a bit of leadership to work environment. This study form Amabile is the basis
of this study. The componential theory proposes a mediational model and that positive behaviors of
supervisors include serving as a good work model, planning and appropriately goal setting. Thus,
leader support behaviors should include both instrumental (or task-oriented) and socioemotional
(or relationship-oriented) actions. The first aim of the present study is to replicate the impact of
leadership, extending existing evidence by examining subordinates’ day-by-day perceptions:
Research Question #1: Do a subordinate’s day-by-day perceptions of team leader support relate to
the subordinate’s overall creativity?
Influences of specific leader behaviors
Influences of leader behaviors on perceived leader support. How do perceptions of leader support
arise? The classic behavioral approach includes the fact that all leader can be categorized as either
task or relational oriented.
- Task oriented leadership: focus on getting the job done, include clarifying roles,
responsibilities, planning, monitoring and managing time and resources.
- Relationship oriented leadership: focus on socioemotional; showing consideration, acting
friendly and supportive, being concerned for wellbeing.
Research Question #2: How do specific day-by-day leader behaviors relate to positive and negative
day-by-day subordinate perceptions of leader support?
Several experiments have demonstrated that induced positive affect leads to greater fluency,
flexibility, and originality of cognition—all processes involved in generating creative ideas
Influences of leader behaviors on creative performance general group performance has been
positively predicted by leaders’ task-oriented behaviors. Also, some positive links between
subordinate creativity and some specific team leader behaviors have been found. One previous study
provides evidence that subordinates’ creativity is a function of their perceptions of the general work
environment for creativity, which is, in turn, partially a function of their relationship with the leader
Research Question #3: What is the nature of the connections between leader behaviors, subordinate
reactions, and subordinate creativity over time?

Methods
Overview multistory longitudinal research program. designed to investigate experience of day-by-day
organizational events. Two qualitative studies. The first a diary narrative. Also, a qualitative analysis
on all incidents of leader behavior falling under: key behaviors found with regression after first
research. The second: comparing two teams that differed widely in perception of leader support and
creativity.
Results
Relationship between perceived leader support and subordinate creativity the relationship between
workers perceived leader support and their mean creativity was moderate and significant. Perceived
leader support is a significant aspect of the work environment for creativity and extends those
findings with evidence on day-by-day leader support.
Qualitative analysis of significant leader behavior categories
Varieties of leader behavior the tale below summarizes the varieties of behaviors that fell into the
significant behavioral category.

Supporting -positive had a significant positive relationship with subordinate ratings of leader support.
- Showing support for a team member’s actions or decisions.
- Helping alleviate stressful situations for subordinates
- Socializing
- Keeping team members informed about stressful issues
- Addressing subordinates’ negative feelings
- Disclosing personal information
- Absence of an expected negative or alteration of a negative pattern
Monitoring—Positive had a significant positive relationship with subordinate ratings of leader support.
- Maintaining regular contact with and providing general guidance to subordinates
- Providing constructive positive feedback on work done
- Monitoring progress in a timely manner
- Reacting to problems in the work with understanding and help
- Absence of an expected negative or alteration of a negative pattern
Recognizing—Positive had a significant positive relationship with subordinate ratings of leader support.
- Recognizing good performance in private
- Recognizing good performance in public
Consulting—Positive had a significant positive relationship with subordinate ratings of leader support.
- Acting on subordinates’ ideas or wishes
- Asking for team members’ ideas and opinions
Other–Neutral/Unknown had a significant positive relationship with subordinate ratings of leader
support.
- Being away from the office
- Collaborating with subordinates
- Expressing emotion observable by subordinates
Clarifying Roles and Objectives—Negative had a marginally significant negative relationship with
subordinate ratings of leader support.
- Creating high time pressure with assignments
- Giving assignments that are not appropriate for the team member
- Not providing enough clarity about an assignment
- Changing assignments ore objectives too frequently
- Assignments that conflict with other management instructions
Monitoring—Negative had a significant negative relationship with subordinate ratings of leader
support.
- Checking on the status of assigned work too often
- Inadequate understanding of subordinates’ capabilities or work
- Providing nonconstructive negative feedback on work done
- Checking on the status or assigned work for too long
- Displayi8ng lack of interest in subordinates’ work or ideas
Problem Solving—Negative had a significant negative relationship with subordinate ratings of leader
support.
- Avoiding solving problems
- Creating problems

Four central finding about the varieties of leader behaviors:

1. Workers reported detail about positive and negative behaviors. Negative behaviors are more
and more detailed. Mostly related to how something was done instead of what.
2. There is variety in most of the categories. This suggest that each key leader support can be
accomplished in multiple ways.
3. A-few leader behaviors that were interpreted positively involve not so much the
performance of a positive behavior as the notable absence of an expected negative behavior
or the alteration of a typically negative behavior pattern.
4. Task-oriented behaviors, such as monitoring work progress, often contain elements of
relationship orientation. This suggests that leadership involves behaviors in which task-
oriented and relationship-oriented aspects are tightly interwoven.
Effects of leader behavior on subordinates’ reactions and performance some suggestive evidence was
found in the diaries of leader behaviors about the connections between variables. Evidence that the
effects of leader behavior on perceptual reactions, affective reactions and performance. Also,
evidence of perceptual and affective reactions mediating the effects of leader behavior on
performance.
All negative point found, had an impact of the perception from workers on the skills of their leaders.
The positive categories enhanced self-perception of the workers. Affective reactions were found
more frequently than perceptual reactions. A number of positive reactions had an effect on stress on
anxiety, by reducing this. This suggests that emotionally supportive team leader behaviors may be
particularly salient in difficult times. Negative leader behaviors seemed to influence subordinates’
affect even more frequently than did positive behaviors. The negative affective reactions were often
quite specific, including anxiety, stress, distraction, frustration, and anger.
Qualitative analysis of extreme cases two of the 26 teams. differed dramatically in perceptions. Also,
in the work there were a few differences.
- In the first organization (Vision); the team was highly successful. Near the end they had a
creative breakthrough. And the management announced this project as a top 10 priority.
o Monitor behavior process
o Also told the team members what the leader was doing.
o Everyone was involved in decisions, everyone felt ownership.
o Leader:
Talking with upper management, potential customers and other resources.
Two main goals for networking: selling positive features and learning
information.
Fought for the project.
Clear open communication to team.
- The second organization (Fusion) was less successful. Only after a few weeks the project was
stopped, and the team was split up. There were problems between the team leader and the
team members.
o Assigning tasks; experienced workers felt overcontrolled.
o Narrow focus on the project rather than challenging. This made workers feel like a
small chance of success.
o Monitor behavior employees’ action
o Leader:
Did not fought
Networking was to learn what management wanted. Not to influence them
or try to tell them specific project information.
In the two projects there was no difference in the frequency in which they gave workers recognition,
but they did this in totally different ways.

Discussion
Leaders who interact daily with workers, may influence employees by their own behavior. They
display a lack of support by monitoring progress inefficiently or unfairly, giving unclear or
inappropriate task assignments, and failing to address important problems.
Leader behavior influences on subordinates: perceiving, feeling and creating. Particular leader
behaviors predict employees’ perceptions of leader support, which predicts peer-rated creativity.
The componential theory of creativity, states that the perceived work environment fan have a
significant impact on individual and team creativity. It identifies local leader support as an important
element. This study suggests that the componential theory can be expanded to include specific
antecedents of perceptions.
Effective leadership appears to require skill not only in managing both subordinate tasks and
subordinate relationships, but also in integrating the two simultaneously. In the Vision and Fusion
teams, both Dave and James affected their subordinate relationships through work monitoring, but
Dave’s skills allowed him to do so in a much more relationship-enhancing fashion.
The autonomy syndrome. Monitoring (+&-), clarifying roles and objectives (-) and consulting (+) are
found to be particularly important for creativity. All are relatively frequent and significant related to
leader support. All of this behavior is related to the level of which employees feel like they are
treated as autonomous contributors autonomy syndrome.
The positive form of this syndrome is evident in the behavioral patterns of leaders whose
subordinates perceive high leader support and perform effectively, while the negative form is
evident in leaders whose subordinates perceive low leader support and perform ineffectively.
Accentuating the negative. Negative behaviors might be more important than the positive behaviors.
The affective reactions of employees are stronger to negative b behaviors than to positive behaviors.
And the positive behavioral categories contained a number of leader behavior that are described as
the unexpected absence of a negative behavior. Negative leader behaviors in organizations are more
extreme than their positive ones, people in organizations are naturally more oriented toward
noticing negative behaviors, or that negative behaviors have more of an impact than positive ones.

Burroughs, J.E., Dahl, D.W., Moreau, C.P., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G.J. (2011).
Facilitating and rewarding creativity during new product development. Journal of
Marketing, 75, 53-67.
Many firms offer incentive programs, creativity training or both. Creativity continues to be a
construcft that is not well understood in marketing. Therfore, there are different ways of
understanding and approaching this. Extrensic rewards offered isolation, this is found in research.
Rewards can be made positife if offered in conjuction with appropriate training. Specifically, product
creativity was highest when the monetary reward was paired with a dedicated creative training
technique.
“Creativity has always been prized in American society, but it's never really been understood. While
our creativity scores decline unchecked, the current national strategy for creativity consists of little
more than praying for a Greek muse to drop by our houses. The problems we face now, and in the
future, simply demand that we do more than just hope for inspiration to strike.” Bronson and
Merryman (2010, p.49)
The succes of NPD depends on creativity. Creativity has also found to be the most important
leadership quality for business success. Creativity is often defined as the production of something
that is both original and usefull. However, it is arugued that marketing academics must do more to
provide insights that help firms achieve their creative aims.
Two different experiments are conducted to test the effectiveness of two managerial tools, rewards
and creativity training in enhancing an individual’s creative performance. Both found that creativity
training alters the reward influence such that it turns a typically neutral or negative effect into a
positive one.
Study 1
The goal of the first study was to better understand manager’s strategies for obtaining and rewarding
creative thought in their organizations. Information was gathered via interiview (semi-structured). In
total a number of 20 interviews were conducted.
Three standardised questions were asked:

In what areas or functions within your company is creativity deemed important and valuable?
- Of the 20 firms, 17 mentioned product innovation and NPD as the areas in which creativity
was most critical.
- 11 falso mentioned that marketing benefited greatly form creative thoughts.
- 6 mentioned ineternal processes and operations as key areas.
- One mentioned that creativity had been critical in cost-cutting initiatives that the firm had
taken.

What structures or programs are in place to encourage creative thinking among your employees?
- A respondent from one of the larger firms in this "no-strategy" category explained that "you
can't teach creativity." However, this belief stands in direct contrast to a great deal of
previous research noting just the opposite
Do you use any type of incentive programs to enhance the creativity of your employees?
General findings: the larg firms have a reliance on outsourcing their creative firms. This is consistent
with the increased specialization characteristics of these firms. Innovative consultats make a lot of
use from creative trainings. One firm trains its people in analogical thinking and visualization to
imporove ideation. The seccond firm trains people to structure their ideation sessions into three
levels of opportunities from which they start the ideation process. The third firm recognizes the value
that constraints play in the creative process. To them, the key is combining discipline and processes
to achieve creativity. Consultants either work with the firms' employees during ideation sessions or
they do the creative development themselves with guidance from the firm.

Discussion the results show little consistency across firms in obtaining and rewarding creative
insights from their employees. Also a variety of approaches for facilitating and rewarding creativity
are found. No clarity on the relationship between extrinsic rewards and different types of creativity
training was found.
Literature study
Extrinsic rewards and creativity a lot of studyes found that reaard systems undermine creativity.
Rewards are beliefed to erode creativity by reducing intrinsic motivation. People who feel low
intrinsic intrest tend to find an activity boring and tedious. However, people do work for
compensations, even in creative fields. This made reserrchers ask the question: “Why do extrinsic
rewards undermine creativity?”. Speculated was that people might be buffered against the
demotivating effects of rewards, depending on their interpretation of the role fo the reward in the
creative process. They reasoned that a reward can be interpreted eighter as constraining or as
informational. Given the difference between something beneficial versus something benign, they
cautioned researchers not to be "too quick to abandon our original notions" of the negative influence
of extrinsic rewards on creativity and to seek out new moderators of this relationship.
Creativity training is it possible to train people to be crative? Some studies found that a creative
training can enefit the output. Even a single session is found to have a positive impact on the output.
A variety of approaches to train employees has been developed, most prominent approaches are
creative idea production training and creative imagery training.
Creative idea production training Ctreative idea production training emphasizes the use of idea
generation and elaboration in response to concrete and realistic problems and situations. It
encourages visualization. . By seeing a problem and its potential solutions through the eyes of
another, engineers who received the training were able to substantially improve on the design of a
traditional car jack, compared with their untrained counterpart
Creative imagery training this family of techniques relies heavily on free association, with the goal of
enhanced latral thinking (making connections across distal conceptual planes). Unrealistic or
improbable scenarios are often used to leverage the mind's capacity for visualization and conceptual
manipulation. Therefore, imagery training is designed to overcome mental blockages and produce
moments of insight
Interaction between extrinsic rewards and creativity training Training can positively increase the
creative outdomes. Only one marketing study looked at the relationship between creativity training
and product outcomes. This study however did nog include motivation influences.
Training may affect the way people work because they have more skills or because they are
intrinsically motivated. If training at least partly enhances motivationm, the provision of a reward
could serve to further reinforce task engagement.
Our view is that training could reverse the otherwise negative or neutralizing influence of rewards on
creativity in an NPD task by bolstering intrinsic motivation. Because creativity training emphasizes
divergent thinking, visualization, and exploration, it provides people with two distinct but important
gifts:
1. the cognitive tools to actually work smarter and
2. a feeling of increased competence during the creative task.
Study 2
In this study two experimental factors were manpulated (the idenpendent variables):
1. Estrinsic rewards: Participants in the conditions offer- ing extrinsic rewards for the design
task received the following information:

2. Creative idea production training: Participants who received creative idea production training
were provided with the following
information:
The dependent variable of this study is the
evaluation of the creativity of each product
design made. This was done by two consumer
judges. It was measured in original and
innovative (useful and novel).
Results The results reveal a main effect of
extrinsic rewards on creativity; designs created
in conjunction with extrinsic rewards are rated
as more creative than those produced in the
absence of such incentive In the absence of
training, the provision of the reward actually
causes creativity to go down slightly albeit not
significantly.
Discussion this study shows that combining creativity training and extrinsic rewards can actually
enhance the creativbity outcomes of employees. However, it did not show how to combine them to
get the best results.
Study 3
The propsition that rewards and training will be mutually reinforcint to intrinsic motivation as an
intermittend factor in the process will be studied. The third study looks a bit like the 2nd study
however, training took form of creative imagery
training this time. Also the dependent variable is
not only creativity but also intrinsic motivation.
Results the extrinsic motivation has a significant
role. Among participants who were untrainted
the provision of an extrinsic reward had a
neglibble effect on intrinsic motivation.
However, participates who received creativity
trianing, saw the extrinsic reward as an increase
in their intrinsic motivation. It is worth noting
the similarity of the pattern of effects between
intrinsic motivation and the creativity of the
new product designs. The patterns are highly
consistent despite one measure (intrinsic
motivation) coming from self-reports of the
participants themselves, whereas the other
(creativity) came from independent judges blind
to conditions of the study.

Grant, A.M., & Berry, J.W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96.
Proposed is that the realtionshi[p between intrinsic motivation and creativity is enahnced by other-
focused psychological processes. Perspective taking encourges employees to develop ideas that are
usefull as well as novel.
Intrinsic motivation is believed to be a great driver of crativity, when intrinsically motivated,
employees expend effort based on interest, curiosity, and a desire to learn. It should enhance
creativity by incr4easing positve affect, cognitive flexibility, risk taking and persistance. Not all studies
however found this effect.
To explain and resolve the inconsistent realtionship between intrisic motivation and creativity, the
motivatied information processing theory is used. This theory offers a promising conceptual
framework for explaining and resolving inconsistencies. Motivation shapes cognitive processing.
Proposed is that since ideas are ultimately most useful when they solve problems, a focus on
usefulness can be engendered by perspective taking.
Motivation and creativity. Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to expend effort based on interest
in and enjoyment of the work that is being perfomed. Three mechanisms have been identified
through which intrinsic motivation can enhance crativity,
1. Emotion theorists: when employees are intrinsically motivate, they experience positive affect.
Stimulating crativity by broadening the range of information.
2. Self-determination theorists: the curiosity and interest in learning will enhance cognitive
flexibility.
3. Intrinsic motivation promotes creativity by encouraging persistence.
Conflicting results. A lot of studies are perfomed on this subject, finding conflicting results. Some
studies were vulnerable to the possibility of reverse causality. All laboratory and field studies suggest
a variable relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity, and this variability has received
surprisingly little theoretical and empirical attention.
Intrinsic motivation might be stronger related to noverty than to usefullness. Summarizing three
decades of self-determination research, intrinsic motivation focuses attention on “activities that have
the appeal of novelty.”. Classic psychological research has shown that many intrinsically motivated
architects had difficulty producing creative ideas because they were focused on the novelty of their
designs but not necessarily concerned with their usefulness.
The impact of other- focused psychological processes. Ideas that are usefull are those that are
applicable to addressing the problems or needs of a wide range of coworkers, supervisors, customers
and clients. When employees focus on others, the ideas will be more usefull.
The moderating effect of prosocial motivation. Prosocial motivation is the desire to expend effort
based on a concern for helping or contributing to other people. Prosocial motivation can involve, but
should not necessarily be equated with, altruism; it refers to a concern for others, not a concern for
others at the expense of self-interest.
Prosocial motivation (PS) differs from intrinsic motivation (IM) in three ways.
1. Self-regulation: IM autonomous self-regulation, PS is based on other oriented values.
2. Goal directedness: IM: completing work in the present, PM outcomes in future.
3. Temporal focus: IM is task focused, PM other-focsed.
PM provides employees with the meaningful outcome goal of helping others. In creativity this will
help others, so generating more useful ideas.

H1. Prosocial motivation strengthens the association between intrinsic motivation and creativity.
The role of perspecting taking. Perspecitve taking is a cognitive process in which individuals adopt
others’ viewpoints in an attempt to understand their preference, values and needs. In some
situations perspective taking can act as a function of employees’ motivations. PM might encourage
employees to engate in persective taking. PM makes employees desire to benefit other and pay
attention to other perspecitves.
H2a. Prosocial motivation is positively associated with perspective taking.
Perspecitve taking, will strenghten the effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity. This is based on the
creative cognitive processing and motivated information processing theories. To translate novel
possibilities into creative ideas, employees need to filter out those that are least useful and retain
those that are most useful. Focussing on other perspectives will help employees select the most
usefull ideas.
H2b. Perspective taking strengthens the association between intrinsic motivation and creativity.
H2c. Perspective taking mediates the moderating effect of prosocial motivation on the association
between intrinsic motivation and creativity.
Study 1
Sample and procedures. Data from 90 security force offeicers. First data was summary, nine months
later supervisors rated employees on their creativity. The officers were responsible for checking
material, threat monitoring ect.

Results and discussion. Regression was used to test the hypothesis that prosocial motivation would
strenghten the association between intrinsic motivation and creativity. Intrinsic motivation was
found to be a significant independent predictor of creativity. Prosocial motivation was not, however
it was moderating effect was significant. Prosocial motivation strengthened the association between
intrinsic motivation and creativity.
Study 2
Sample and procedures. 111 employees and direct supbervisiors at water treatment plant.
Employees were asked to provide ratings of their intrinsic and prosocial motivations, levels of
perspective taking, and several control variables and supervisors were asked to rate employees’
creativity.
Results and discussion. Intrinsic and prosocial motivations interacted significantly to predict su-
pervisors’ ratings of creativity, accounting for 3 percent additional variance in creativity. Intrinsic
motivation was positively related to creativithy when prosocial motivation was highm but not when
it was low.
Prosocial motivation was significantly associated with perspective taking. Perspective taking and
intrinsic motivation interacted to predict creativityupporting hypothesis 2b. Perspective taking
mediates the moderating effect of prosocial motivation on the relationship between intrinsic
motivation and creativity.

Study 3
Sample and procedures. Laboratory experiment in which participants generated creative ideas to
solve a business problem. Manipulated were intrinsic and prosocial motivations and measured is
perspecitve taking as a mediator. Independent raters rated he creative ideas. 100 undergraduates
participated in this study. All gaining 10 dollar gift certificate for participating.
Results and discussion. H1 was supported, a significatn effect was found between intinsic and
prosocial imotivation to creativity. Intrinsic mortivation increased creativity when prococial
motivation was high but not when prosocial motivation was low.
Also, a significatn effect of the prosocial motivation manipulation on perspective taking (supporting
H2a). Supporting Hypothesis 2b, perspective taking interacted positively with the intrinsic motiva-
tion manipulation to predict higher creativiy. The results support Hypothesis 2c, showing that
perspective taking mediated the moderating effect of prosocial motivation on the association
between intrinsic motivation and creativity.
General discussion
Theoretical contributions. A step towards resolving the controversy about the link between intrinsic
motivation and creativity was taken. The relationship is contigent on other-focused psychological
processes. Perspective taking is introduced as a new mechanism for explaining the moderating
effects of prosocial motivation on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and crativity.
Conclusion
This research identifies prosocial motivation and perspective taking as important contingencies that
strengthen the effects of intrinsic motivation on creativity. These studies help to resolve theoretical
controversies about whether intrinsic motivation influences creativity and provide empirical and
practical insights into how multiple motivational processes can drive creativity.

Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business School
Publishing. *
Pixar’s success is not largely because of luck. Rather, I believe our adherence to a set of principles
and practices for managing creative talent and risk is responsible. Pixar is a community in the true
sense of the word. Management’s job is not to prevent risk but to build the capability to recover
when failures occur. It must be safe to tell the truth. We must constantly challenge all of our
assumptions and search for the flaws that could destroy our culture.
What is creativity?
Creativity must be present at everey level of every artistic and technical part of the organization. The
leaders sort through a mass of ideas to find the ones that fit into a coherent whole, that support the
story, which is a very difficult task. We are supposed to offer something that isn’t obvious, we
brought into somebody’s initial vision and took a chance. If you want to be original, you have to
accept the uncertainty, even when it’s uncomfortable, and have the capability to recover when your
organization takes a big risk and fails. The key to this: talented people! Such people are not easy to
find.
Also, getting talented people to work effectively with one another is difficult. It takes trust and
respect, which we as managers can’t mandate; they must be earned over time. What we can do is
construct an environment that nurtures trusting and respectful relationships and unleashes
everyone’s creativity. The result is a vibrant community where talented people are loyal to one
another and their collective work, everyone feels that they are part of something extraordinary.
Community matters.
The roots of our culture

If you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they will screw it up; if you give a mediocre idea to a
great team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come up with something that works. Also,
there has to be one quality bar for every film we produce. Everyone made tremendous personal
sacrifices to fix Toy Story 2. But because of these sacrifices, we made a loud statement as a
community that it was unacceptable to produce some good films and some mediocre films. It
became deeply ingrained in our culture that everything we touch needs to be excellent. You need to
strive to create an environment that supports great people and encourage them to support one
another so the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts.
Power to the creatives

Our philosophy is: You get great creative people, you bet big on them, you give them enormous
leeway and support, and you provide them with an environment in which they can get honest
feedback from everyone. We changed the mission of our development department after Toy Story 2.
Instead of coming up with new ideas for movies, the department’s job is to assemble small
incubation teams to help directors refine their own ideas to a point where they can convince John
and our other senior filmmakers that those ideas have the potential to be great films. They have to
asses whether the teams’ social dynamics are healthy and whether the teams are solving problems
and making progress.
There are really two leaders: the director and the producer. What does it take for a director to be a
succesful leader in this environment? Good directors not only possess strong analytical skills
themselves but also can harness the analytical power and life experiences of their staff members.
They are superb listeners and strive to understand the thinking behind every suggestion. They
appreciate all contributions, regardless of where or from whom they originate, and use the best
ones.

A peer culture
What sets us apart from other studios is the way people at all levels support one another. Everyone
is fully invested in helping everyone else turn out the best work. Nothing exemplifies this more than
our creative brain trust and our daily review process.
• Brain trust: this group consists of John and our eight directors. When a director and producer
feel in need of assistance, they convene the group and show the current version of the work
in progress. This is followed by a lively two-hour give-and-take discussion, which is all about
making the movie better. There is no ego. Nobody pulls any punches to be polite. This works
because all the participants have come to trust and respect one another. After a session, it’s
up to the director of the movie and his or her team to decide what to do with the advice;
there are no mandatory notes, and the brain trust has no authority. This liberates the trust
members, so they can give their unvarnished expert opinions, and it liberates the director to
seek help and fully consider the advice.
• The dailies: this practice of working together as peers is core to our culture, and it’s not
limited to our directors and producers. One example is our daily reviews (or dailies), a
process for giving and getting constant feedback in a postivie way. People show work in an
incomplete state to the whole animation crew, and although the director makes deicsions,
everyone is encouraged to comment. Benefits:
o Once they get over the embarrassment of showing work in progress, they become
more creative
o The director guiding the review process can communicate important points to the
entire crew at the same time
o People learn from and inspire each other
o No surprises in the end
Technology + art = magic

Getting people in different disciplines to treat one another as peers is just as important as getting
people within disciplines to do so, but it’s much harder. At Pixar, we believe in interplay between art
and technology and constantly try to use better technology at every stage of production. We adhere
the following principles:
• Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone (the most efficient way to
deal with numerous problems is to trust people to work out the difficulties directly with each
other without having to check for permission)
• It must be safe for everyone to offer ideas (we make a concerted effort to make it safe to
criticize by inviting everyone attending these showings to e-mail notes to the creative leaders
that detail what they liked and didn’t like and explain why)
• We must stay close to innovations happening in the academic community (publishing may
give away ideas, but it keeps us connected with the academic community. It helps us attract
exceptional talent and reinforces the belief throughout the company that people are more
important than ideas)
Staying on the rails

‘if we are ever successful, will we be equally blind?’. It is difficult for an organization to analyze itself
(uncomfortable and it’s hard to stay objective). Systematically fighting complacency and uncovering
problems when your company is successful have got to be two of the toughest management
challenges there are. Clear values, constant communication, routine postmortems, and the regular
injection of outsiders who will challenge the status quo aren’t enough. Strong leadership is also

essential – to make sure people don’t pay lip service to the values, tune out the communications,
game the processes, and automatically discount newcomers’ observations and suggestions. What do
we do:
• Postmortems: although people learn from the postmortems, they don’t like to do them.
Leaders naturally want to use the occasion to give kudos to their team members. People in
general would rather talk about what went right than what went wrong. Techniques to
overcome this:
o Try to vary the way you do the postmortems
o Ask each group to list the top five things they would do again and the top five things
they wouldn’t do
o Employ lots of data in the review. Keep track of the rates at which things happen,
how often something has to be reworked. Data can show things in a neutral way,
which can stimulate discussion and challenge assumptions arising from personal
impressions.
• Fresh blood: Two challenges when bringing in new people with fresh perspectives:
o ‘The not-invented-here syndrome’
Continually embracing change the way we do makes newcomers less
threatening.
o ‘The awe-of-the-institution syndrome’
New hires sometimes don’t have the confidence to speak up. So to try and
remedy this, I make it a practice to speak at the orientation sessions for new
hires, where I talk about the mistakes we’ve made and the lessons we’ve
learned. My intent is to persuade them that we haven’t gotten it all figured
out and that we want everyone to question why we’re doing something that
doesn’t seem to make sense to them.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1JM06 Summary - Human Aspacts of Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1JM06 Summary - Human Aspacts of Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summary of Human Aspects of

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Human aspects of Innovation – 1JM06

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Lecture 1: Human Creativity: The starting point of Innovation

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

MIP-G and Group creativity

MIP-G and Group Innovation

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Innovation: the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization.

Four discoveries (after the componential model):

1. Creativity is viewed more dynamically: as comprising cycles of creativity

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Two central constructs in the model:

1. A. Intrinsic motivation principle of creativity: people can be intrinsically motivated toward a

2. Social environment (work environment) influences creativity in a number of ways

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

The organizational innovation process:

The individual creative process.

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

1. Task presentation stage. It involves identifying the goal or problem.

The dynamic componential model

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

New critical psychological factors

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

The progress principle:

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

The broader role of meaningful work in creativity

Meaningful work can enhance creativity when:

1. It is intrinsically motivating, so it is argued that meaningful work influences the creative

1. Work orientation influences the creative process primarily through motivation

Affect and creativity

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

The motivation for creativity

Two modifications to the intrinsic motivation principle:

1. Positive effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity is enhanced in individuals who have a

Revised intrinsic motivation principle: intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity; controlling

Dynamism in the dynamic componential model

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Leader encouragement of creativity strengthens the relationship between psychological

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gevers, J. M., & Demerouti, E. (2013). How supervisors' reminders relate to

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy

You can measure creativity in three ways:

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com

Gedownload door: sandersmenno | sandersmenno@gmail.com