1

Executive Summary
The following report explores contemporary theories of creativity and innovation before
discussing various blocks and barriers against creativity, at the individual, group, and
organizational levels. Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Company (ORPIC) has
been taken as a case organisation in order to scrutinise the hurdles against creativity and
innovation that commonly occur in organisations. Individual blocks that have been identified
include perceptual, emotional and cultural blocks, while the lack of necessity of creativity serves
as a barrier at the group level. Organisation barriers against creativity and innovation include
tradition, fear of experimentation, and pessimism. The report concludes with several feasible and
implementable recommendations for ORPIC to overcome the barriers and blocks against
creativity.
 2

Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
2. Creativity and Innovation.........................................................................................................3
3. Individual Blocks and Organisational Barriers to Creativity and Innovation..........................4
3.1. Individual Blocks..............................................................................................................5
3.2. Group Barriers...................................................................................................................5
3.3. Organisational Barriers.....................................................................................................5
4. Conclusion and Recommendations..........................................................................................6
5. References................................................................................................................................8
 3

1. Introduction

In the increasingly competitive world of today, creativity and innovation are of the utmost
importance to all kinds of businesses, whether they deal with food catering, automobiles, or
software (Anderson et al., 2014). In the context of business, creativity refers to the generation of
new, useful ideas, whereas innovation is defined as the usage of creative ideas to solve problems,
bring about improvement, or develop new processes (Dawson & Andriopoulos, 2014). Both
creativity and innovation are required in organizations for various purposes, for instance to solve
problems, develop new products, and enhance sales of existing products (Johansson‐Sköldberg et
al., 2003). Both traits are valued at all levels of organisations i.e. individual, group, and
organisational level. This report discusses the concepts of creativity and innovation, according to
contemporary theories surrounding the concepts. Additionally, the blocks against creativity and
innovation in Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Company (ORPIC) at the
individual, group, and organisational levels are analysed. Finally, meaningful conclusions are
drawn, and feasible recommendations developed to enhance creativity and innovation at ORPIC.
ORPIC operates in the private sector of Oman and majorly deals with the refinement of oil and
the production of fuels, aromatics, and polymers (ORPIC, 2019).

2. Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and innovation have both been declared essential for the operations of a business by
authors such as Anderson et al. (2014) and Martins and Terblanche (2003). The use of both
creativity and innovation have become crucial to not only the success of organisations, but also
their survival in the long term. Over the years, many scholars have given different theories about
creativity and innovation with regards to the workplace. Staw (1990) brought forward the
concept of creative problem solving, and stated that creativity must be meaningful for it to
matter. Grant and Berry (2013) presented the theory that both novelty and usefulness of ideas
stems from intrinsic motivation. Pratt et al. (2013) presented a contradictory stance, declaring
that novel and beneficial ideas can only be initiated in people who have a service work
orientation.
 4

Amabile and Pratt (2016) developed a new model for creativity and innovation in the context of
the workplace, in which a strong relationship is assumed between individual creativity and
organizational innovation, as observed by the researchers. Furthermore, the authors declare that
the managerial practices prevalent in an organization either enhance or decrease individual
creativity, which hence affects organizational innovation in the same way. Another central
construct of the model proposed by Amabile and Pratt (2016) is that the social environment of
the workplace, otherwise known as the work environment, affects the overall creativity and
innovation. According to the authors, the work environment consists of leadership practices,
strategies, structures, policies, values, and communication (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Along the
years, the concept of creativity and innovation in the workplace has undergone significant
revision, and has given rise to the model proposed by Amabile and Pratt (2016), which is the
most logical and practically sound model at present.

3. Individual Blocks and Organisational Barriers to Creativity and Innovation

Individuals occasionally experience difficulties in their workplace that hinder the arousal and
sustainment of creativity, and hence have a detrimental effect on organisational innovation thus
limiting organisational performance (Anon, 2013). Blocks and barriers to creativity and
innovation might be affecting people individually, or all of an organisation’s employees
collectively. According to the span of their effect, hindrances against creativity and innovation
are classified as either individual blocks or organisational blocks. Although the management at
ORPIC has attempted to enhance the working conditions of its employees, and has given them
comfortable office spaces to encourage their creative thinking process, it has failed to inspire
creativity and innovation. In 2015, it undertook 4 new projects simultaneously as part of its
growth strategy (ORPIC, 2016), which had a detrimental effect on their human resources
department. Hence, the individual, group, and organisational barriers to creativity and innovation
in ORPIC will be related to the company’s operations in the years 2016 and 2017.

3.1. Individual Blocks

According to Arnold (1962), individual blocks to creativity could be perceptual, cultural, or
emotional. Inference suggests that all three kinds of individual blocks are related to each other,
and hence each of them leads to the next (Figure 1). In the case of ORPIC, the simultaneous
beginning of four new projects presented an overload of information to the employees, who
 5

could not correctly process and utilise the huge amount of new information, hence forming a
perceptual block to creativity. The work overload caused stress for the upper management, which
trickled down to the bottom line employees due to their agitated behaviour. The perceptual block
eventually led to an emotional block, as the talented employees who came up with creative
solutions to manage information, despite struggling with the information overload, could not
share their solutions with the distressed higher management for fear of rebuking (Kalyanam,
2018). In this case, although creativity was ignited, it could not be sustained. The troubled higher
management failed to support their staff in terms of creativity and innovation, which led to a
cultural block; all three blocks against individual creativity and innovation became widespread,
hence strongly discouraging creative ideas. Although the concerns of both the management were
valid and understandable due to the company’s situation, they presented barriers to creative ideas
which would otherwise have helped them overcome organisational issues.

Perceptual
Block

Emotional
Block

Cultural
Block

Figure 1: Relationship of Individual Blocks

3.2. Group Barriers

While individual blocks affect each person internally, group barriers against creativity and
innovation effect the employees of an organisation’s groups and teams. A block found at the
group level at ORPIC is that the employees do not feel the need to be creative or innovative as
they consider the company to operate in the petrochemicals and engineering sectors, which is
 6

very distinct from the creative sector. The lack of necessity for creativity was observed in the
employees of ORPIC’s finance, human resources, and engineering departments. Due to the
orientation of the company in the petrochemicals and engineering industries, the employees
resisted creativity, and team leaders also did not value creativity and innovation at all.

3.3. Organisational Barriers

Organisational blocks are commonly found in the upper management of any organisation, and
hence adversely influence the whole organisation. Some factors acting as organisational blocks
present in ORPIC due to the simultaneous initiation of 4 projects are tradition, fear of
experimentation, and pessimism (Nichols, 2017) (Figure 2). Due to the nature of the company’s
operations, and the high profile clients that it deals with, the tradition of ORPIC is highly
conservative. The creative solutions to problems that were developed by employees during the
busy years of 2016-2017 did not always adhere to the traditional norms of the company, and
hence were rejected by the upper management. Here, the concept of going beyond the company’s
comfort zone should have been implemented to solve the company’s problems. Another barrier
presented by the organisation was the fear of experimentation. As creative and innovative ideas
presented by employees were entirely new for organisation, managers rejected them. The fear of
experimentation in the upper management was unusually high, due to the 4 projects that were on
stake (Kalyanam, 2018). Management was hence strongly pessimistic towards all forms of
creativity and innovation brought forth by the employees. The behaviour of the management,
although rational, disapproved ground-breaking innovative ideas that the employees presented to
them.

Tradition Fear of Experimentation

Pessimism
 7

Figure 2: Organisational Blocks

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The report has presented a thorough analysis of the process of creativity and innovation, drawing
on contemporary theories and models presented by scholars. Moreover, it has identified several
barriers against creativity and innovation, both individual and organisational, in the context of
ORPIC. This section presents recommendations for the organisation to remove the blocks and
barriers identified in the previous section.

ORPIC should implement separate training sessions for their lower-level employees and upper
management to encourage and sustain innovation, as is done by Google (Steiber & Alänge,
2013). The trainings for lower level employees would target individual blocks, and should
include mental exercises to enhance creative problem solving and innovative ideas to improve
existing processes. On the other hand, the trainings for the upper managerial staff would be
designed to remove organisational barriers against creativity and innovation, and must include
the polishing of ideas and good leadership skills so as to encourage their subordinates to come up
with creative ideas and solutions. Although the implementation of this practice would demand
finances, it would be useful for the organisation in the long term.

In addition, ORPIC should devise a practice for the publicising of the employees’ ideas
anonymously, whether they be managers, executives, or lower level employees. The
implementation could be as simple as cordoning off a section of the organisation’s main
noticeboard and dedicate it for this purpose. The practice would allow everyone to communicate
their creative ideas and solutions without convincing people to listen and pay attention, and
without fear of rebuttal. Hence, both individual and organisational barriers could be dealt with in
an economical and feasible way.
 8

5. References
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, pp.157-183.

Amabile, T.M., 2012. Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School, 12(96), pp.1-

10.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K. & Zhou, J., 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-
of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
management, 40(5), pp.1297-1333.

Anon, 2013. Google grows on people. Strategic Direction, 29(9), pp.16-18.

Dawson, P. & Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing change, creativity and innovation. Sage.

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), pp.73-96.

Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. & Çetinkaya, M., 2013. Design thinking: past, present and
possible futures. Creativity and innovation management, 22(2), pp.121-146.

Kalyanam, S., 2018, November. Challenges of Gas and Oil Mega-Projects: Suhar Refinery.
In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.

Martins, E.C. & Terblanche, F., 2003. Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity
and innovation. European journal of innovation management, 6(1), pp.64-74.

Nichols, L., 2017. Oman eyes refinery improvements, new petrochemical hub. Hydrocarbon
Processing.

ORPIC, 2016. LPIC Signs 4 ECP Contracts. ORPIC Inside, 13.

ORPIC, 2019. About Us. Retrieved from https://www.orpic.om/home [Accessed 27 October

2019].
 9

Pratt, M.G., Pradies, C. & Lepisto, D.A., 2013. Doing well, doing good, and doing with:
Organizational practices for effectively cultivating meaningful work. Purpose and
meaning in the workplace, pp.173-196.

Staw, B. M., 1990. An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. In M. A. West, & J.
L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at workChichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Steiber, A. & Alänge, S., 2013. A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of
Google Inc. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), pp.243-264.