RUDI KIRKHAUG

Loyalty and Creativity

in a Disciplinary Organization

ABSTRACT
The relationship between loyalty to rules and the creativity that attempts
to improve those same rules was examined among Norwegian army officers
deployed in international operations. Today’s army officers are faced with rapidly
changing work conditions and unpredictable enemies, both of which challenge
and outdate rules and routines. They thus may experience that they are either
guided by too few or inadequate rules, or by many rules that need to be con-
stantly updated. Assuming that following rules is advantageous to officers, then,
contrary to classical theory, it was hypothesized that officers scoring both low
and high on loyalty to rules would score high on creativity. Hierarchical regres-
sion analyses revealed a significant U-shaped relationship between loyalty to rules
and creativity.
Key words: Creativity, loyalty, rules, curvilinearity, army

INTRODUCTION
This article discusses a sensitive if not controversial topic within disciplinary
organizations, namely the relationship between the organization’s demand for
loyalty to rules and the employees’ creativity in attempting to alter those same
rules. A disciplinary organization is one that emphasizes compliance and disci-
pline and puts a premium on organizational characteristics such as hierarchy,
rank, tight coupling, formalization and conformity (cf. Etzioni, 1975; Klaas, Gainey
& Dell’Omo, 1999; Taylor & Rosenbach, 1996; Weick, 1976). Military and police
organizations fall well within such a description, as do so-called high reliability
organizations, i.e. organizations where errors can lead to catastrophic results (cf.
Klein, Bigley & Roberts, 1995; Perrow, 1999; Reason, 2005; Weick, 1987; 1990;
Wildavsky, 1988). The present article reports the results of a case-study of one
particular type of such organizations: a military unit.

135 Volume 43 Number 2 Second Quarter 2009

43-2-09.p65 67 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

Individual creativity has been regarded important to organizations on the

assumption that adaptation to change is easier when employees are able to voice
and influence ideas of improvement and change to existing rules and routines
(cf. Amabile, 1988; Ford, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Loyalty is assumed
to be universal, typical of all social units but a defining characteristic of disciplin-
ary organizations where the adherence of employees to organizational rules and
routines is mandatory. The assumption is that absolute loyalty will increase the
organization’s efficiency and safety (cf. Adler & Adler, 1988; Etzioni, 1975; Withey
& Cooper, 1989; Wildavsky, 1988).
For the most part however, loyalty to organizational rules and routines has not
been considered favorable for individual creativity. This perspective is supported,
in part, by research indicating that adherence to rules and routines takes place at
the expense of personal initiatives and ideas (cf. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby
& Herron, 1996; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Ford, 1996; Isaksen, 2007; McCoy, 2005;
Withey & Cooper, 1989). Etzioni (1975) argued that organizations facing external
threats tend to intensify adherence to rules and procedures at the expense of
individual initiatives (cf. Gouldner, 1954; Staw, Sandelands & Dutton, 1981).
Creativity that attempts to change and improve concepts of loyalty create
specific and unique problems, distinct from creativity that attempts to change
elements of the organization that are not in anyway connected to loyalty, such as
a business organization’s product range.
By focusing on the problem of maintaining loyalty to existing rules and
procedures while simultaneously trying to change and improve them, this study
engages in the debates of how organizations can cope with ambiguous and
incompatible expectations, for instance simultaneous demands for change and
efficiency (cf. Adler, Goldoftas & Levine, 1999; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Lewis,
2000). In the deepest sense, this problem pertains to an organizations’ capability
of renewing and surviving in turbulent and hostile environments (cf. Gouldner,
1959). More precisely, the aim of this study is to examine if the relationship
between loyalty and creativity has a form that challenges traditional and linear
Newtonian either-or logic, and reflects the dynamics and complexities often asso-
ciated with organizational adaptation to demanding and changing task environ-
ments (cf. Bigley & Roberts, 2001; Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004).
In order to clarify the nature of the relationship between loyalty and creativity
in so-called disciplinary organizations, I examined the experiences from an Army
unit in Norway confronted with different tasks and environments such as domes-
tic territorial defence, peace-keeping operations and the fight against terrorism in
foreign countries under UN and NATO command. Norwegian army officers speak
of “tailoring” when describing how their organization operates on missions abroad.
Similar adaptive processes characterize armies around the world (cf. Dunlap, 1999;
Shamir & Ben-Ari, 2000). In order to manage this world of constant change,
military organizations have to rely on ideas of improvement and change coming
from field experiences (cf. Fastabend & Simpson, 2004; Scales, 2005; Ron, Lipshitz
& Popper, 2006). This creative capacity has even been explicitly demanded by
Norwegian governments (cf. Royal Proposition, No 42).

136

43-2-09.p65 68 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

However, while officers may be encouraged to find and initiate local solutions
(cf. Potter, Rosenbach & Pittman, 1996), laws and handbooks reveal that they are
subjected to a significantly rigid form of evaluation and sanction regarding
their ability to follow rules and orders. Military academies around the world still
emphasize loyalty as one of the basic instincts that is to be developed among
officers (cf. Soeters & Recht, 1998). Officers showing low degrees of rule follow-
ing or direct their creativity towards change of rules and standard operational
procedures, therefore run the risk of being punished (cf. Dewett, 2006).
Normally the loyalty of employees is directed at various elements or groups
like formal rules, organizational goals and values, leaders, colleagues or clients
(cf. Adler & Adler, 1988; Chen, Tsui & Farh, 2002; Kolarska & Aldrich, 1980;
Rusbult, Farrel, Rogers & Mainous, 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). In this study I
focus on loyalty to rules and routines. Although loyalty to rules and routines is
expected to offer safety and efficiency (cf. Kern, 1997; Perrow, 1999; Reason,
2005), there are cases where the rules are not adequate to the task, and as such
employees may be exposed to danger by following them. Consequently, for the
purpose of this study I define loyalty as employees’ compliance with rules and
procedures resulting in advantages or disadvantages for the employees and
the organization. Following Amabile et al. (1996) and Zhou and George (2001),
I define creativity as the voicing — by employees — of new and original ideas
for improving administrative processes and procedures, contributing to the
organization’s renewal and survival as well as to improved working conditions
of employees. Hence, this definition of creativity does not include rule breaking
or the promotion of ideas aiming at a radical replacement of existing concepts
and technology.
In order to shed light on the assumed complicated relationship between
loyalty and creativity, I will first present some of the leading current assumptions
in the literature that favor negative and positive correlations, respectively. As a
consequence of my analysis of these arguments as a whole, I propose arguments
supportive of a curvilinear relationship.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NEGATIVE, POSITIVE AND CURVILINEAR

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOYALTY AND CREATIVITY
Since Burns and Stalker (1961), scholars studying creativity have argued that
an organization characterized by a precise definition of rights and obligations,
hierarchic structure of control, vertical interaction and insistency on loyalty and
obedience, is not capable of supporting creativity among the employees, (e.g.
Amabile et al., 1996; Damanpour, 1991; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin,
1993). As such employees may feel that they have less space to think freely since
following rules takes time and energy, and they may feel that their attention is
redirected away from heuristic aspects of the task. In the settings presented here
an additional and more practical explanation is offered. If the perceived quality of

137

43-2-09.p65 69 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

the rules is satisfactory and thus offers help and guidance, there will be little
motivation among the employees to engage in voicing ideas of improvement and
change. On the other hand, under low degrees of adherence to rules, caused
for instance by a conscious strategy on the part of the organization, it has been
argued that the employees have fewer restrictions on their thinking, allowing ex-
change of information and experimenting. However, a more precise explanation
can be offered, relevant to the problem under discussion in this study. Low de-
grees of rule adherence may be caused by the perception that the rules are weak
and outdated, due to, for instance, organizational changes or changes of external
working conditions. The employees may therefore wish to improve the rules or
even reintroduce discarded practices providing them with better assistance, and
something substantial to which they can direct their loyalty.
In contrast to traditional thinking on the issue, some researchers have
proposed that fewer rules to follow might result in less creativity, since such con-
ditions create chaos and stress, thereby forcing employees to focus on basic main-
tenance and damage control (e.g. Adler & Borys, 1996; Damanpour, 1991; Weick
& Westley, 1996). However, when order is improved through the establishment of
adequate rules and routines, employees are offered time and opportunity to con-
sider renewal and improvements. Although influential researchers have argued
that creativity will start to drop when rule adherence has reached a certain level
(e.g. Weick & Westley, 1996; Clegg & Hardy, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993), there
may be circumstances under which creativity will continue to increase under in-
creasing rule adherence. For instance, when rule adherence is regarded useful
for avoiding punishment, achieving remuneration or maintaining personal safety,
but when the rules are simultaneously identified for re-evaluation and re-formula-
tion, and the employees are both receptors of change impulses and well qualified
to suggest improvements, there may be concurrence between high score on rule
adherence and high score on creativity. The literature offers empirical examples
of concurrence between high score on rule following and creativity. Schulman
(1993) observed that a nuclear power plant regularly renewed rules and routines
on the basis of inputs coming from the employees’ experience of careful adher-
ence to the rules. Another example was offered by Ron, Lipshitz and Popper (2006).
They reported that systemic improvements of rules and doctrines in an Israeli
fighter aircraft squadron resulted from pilots’ suggestions during post flights re-
views regarding their attempts to meet the rules during combat and training sor-
ties. Earlier research has identified a positive and fruitful interaction between rules
and creativity in the sense that rules may allow for better coordination of ideas
originating at different levels and divisions of the organization — and also support
improvisation, which is an important element of creative processes (e.g. Adler,
Goldoftas & Levine, 1999; Barret, 1998; Weick, 1987; Weick & Roberts, 1993).
These observations and analyses give rise to a paradoxical proposal: The greater
the loyalty to rules, the greater is the eagerness amongst employees to propose
ideas to change and improve them.

138

43-2-09.p65 70 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Instead of weighing in favor of one side or the other of the arguments referred
to above, I suggest reconciliation by arguing that they both may be right, and
that the relationship between loyalty and creativity may take a curvilinear form.
According to Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken (2003) the diagnosing of complex
relationships should include curvilinear analyses. In particular, this form of analy-
sis is useful when empirical studies report insignificant correlations despite theo-
retical proposals arguing the opposite, or when practical observations contradict
theoretical proposals. The relationship between loyalty and creativity seem to
meet these criteria. In short, the sanction and remuneration system motivating
employees to follow the rules, the rapid change of environments outdating the
same rules, and the potential employees have to propose improvements through
field experiences, suggest that officers scoring both low and high on loyalty to
rules will score high on creativity, while officers scoring somewhere in the middle
of loyalty to rules will be least motivated to propose ideas of improvement. I there-
fore hypothesize:
H1. The relationship between loyalty to rules and individual creativity
aiming at changing the same rules can best be depicted as U-formed.

METHOD
SAMPLE
The data come from a 2002/2003 survey of an Army group in Norway. This
Army group radically changed its organization approximately one year prior to
this study by introducing a matrix structure. Specialists on finance, personnel
and logistics were centralized from each battalion to the general staff command.
However, during international operations, the units were regrouped into a more
classic form of military organization, such that each commander had all service
branches under his command.
To obtain permission to carry out the study as well as select respondents, a
one-on-one meeting was held with the General of the Army group, and thereafter
a meeting with the whole general staff command. The questionnaire was
pre-tested by three high ranking officers in the army group. The sample consists
of 71 military officers ranking from lieutenant-colonel to lieutenant which repre-
sents about 10 percent of the total amount of the officers within this group. The
response rate was 63 percent.
The mean age was 33.72 years (ranging from 22 to 58 years). The average
tenure in the organization was 5.22 years. Average tenure in present position was
1.49 years. 94.41 percent were men and 5.62 per cent women. Average academic
education exceeding professional training like War College was equal to 1.5 years.
After calculating the statistical data, several interviews were conducted with
officers belonging to this army group, in addition to data presentations to a larger
audience so as to obtain feedback from a broader sample of military officers and
their union officials, all for purposes of validation. Important interpretations of
the results were achieved.

139

43-2-09.p65 71 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

MEASURES
To obtain optimal validity for the variables subjected to testing I employed fac-
tor analysis together with principal component extraction rotated to a varimax
criterion. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) was used as a reliability test. Items
were ranged on Likert-scales from (1) at a very low degree or strongly disagree,
to (5) at a very high degree or strongly agree. To arrive at meaningful and inter-
pretable factor structures, I applied the following two criteria to screen items: First,
the item must have a minimum loading of .40 on a factor. Second, the item must
have low cross-loading on the other factor.
Creative behavior was assessed through five items adapted from Janssen,
Vries & Cozijnsen (1998) tapping the degree to which the respondents promoted
ideas of changing and improving working methods. Sample items are: “I suggest
improvements of working methods”, “I suggest stricter rule following than what
we practice today”, “I suggest improvements of those standard operations proce-
dures/routines we practice today”. The items loaded on one factor accounting for
56.88 percent of the variance. The inter-item reliability coefficient (α) was .80.
Loyalty was assessed through three statements developed for this study:
“I follow the rules and procedures of the organization despite their weaknesses”,
“I deviate from the rules and routines in cases where they are not up to standard”
(R), and “the rules and procedures of the organization guide my daily work”.
These variables loaded on one factor counting for 54.04 per cent of the variance
(α = .57).
As control variables I entered age, experience from present position, freedom
of action, affective commitment and the linear form of loyalty. Some studies have
shown that the older employees grow, the less interested they are in proposing
ideas of change (e.g. Sevastos, Smith & Cordery, 1992). On the other hand, gen-
eral experience from working life often increases domain-related knowledge, which,
according to Ford (1996), may equip the employees with insights which may
allow them more opportunities to evaluate new aspects of their own work. I mea-
sured age and experience from present position by asking the respondents to
state number of years. As referred to above, a substantial amount of literature has
argued that more freedom of action granted to employees allows for an increased
use of intuition and competence. Five items adapted from (Kirkhaug & Halvari,
1998) made up a factor counting for 55.62 per cent of the variance (α = .79).
Example items are “Are you allowed to use your creative abilities in this job?” and
“Are you delegated responsibility and authority within your field of responsibil-
ity?” Affective commitment, often recognized in this type of organization as
esprit de corps, is a basic instrument through which disciplinary organizations
try to foster autonomy, motivation and extra efforts among the employees with-
out the use of rules and force and simultaneously maintain control (cf. Dunivin,
1996; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Six items adapted from Allan and Meyer
(1990) made up the factor counting for 48.15 per cent of the variance (α = .75).
Example items are “I would like to spend the rest of my career with this organiza-
tion” and “I don’t feel like part of the family in this organization” (R).

140

43-2-09.p65 72 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

RESULTS
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations and correlations among all
variables.

TABLE 1. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations (N = 70).

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 33.72 7.37 –
2. Experience present position 1.49 1.66 .95** –
3. Loyalty to rules 3.27 .61 –.16 –.17 –
4. Affective commitment 3.65 .76 .14 .18 –.12 –
5. Freedom of action 4.09 .68 –.18 –.20 –.22 .17 –
6. Creativity 3.28 .78 –.15 –.08 –.07 .21* .14 –

*p < .10. **p < .01

Surprisingly, freedom of action received the highest mean score according to

the descriptive analyses. Affective commitment also has a relatively high mean
score, while loyalty has a score slightly above the mean. The results from the
zero-order analyses revealed weak relationships between creativity and most of
the included variables, as expected. Table 2 presents the hierarchical regression
results. Because of very high correlation between age and experience indicating
potential collinearity, I chose only to use age in the regression analysis.

TABLE 2. Results of hierarchical regression for predicting creativity.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

1. Age –.16 –.17 –.09
2. Affective commitment .22* .22* .20
3. Freedom of action .07 .06 .08
4. Loyalty to rules –.06 .24
5. Loyalty x loyalty .41**
“∆ R2 .00 .08
“∆ F .25 6.10**
R2 .08 .08 .16
F-value 1.93 1.49 2.51**

Note: Standardized Beta-coefficients are reported.

*p < .10. **p < .05

141

43-2-09.p65 73 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

In step one, I entered the control variables. However, they did not produce a
significant model, and only affective commitment was significant at the .10-level.
If linearity is the best representation of the loyalty-creativity relationship, then the
linear form of loyalty alone should explain a significant amount of the variance.
If, however, the inclusion of the quadratic term of loyalty explains a significant
amount of variance beyond that due to the linear term, then a curvilinear form
would better represent the relationship. Adding the linear form of loyalty in model
two did not increase the explained variance significantly. However, adding the
quadratic term of organizational loyalty in model three increased the explained
variance of creativity significantly. In order to test the form of the quadratic rela-
tionship closer I performed a quadratic regression analysis of creativity upon loy-
alty (see Figure 1).

5,00 Observed
—— Quadratic

4,00
Creativity

3,00

2,00

1,00
1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Loyalty
FIGURE 1. Curvilinear relationship between organizational loyalty and creativity.
Horizontal stippled line indicates mean value.

As hypothesized, the curve has a significant U-form confirming the assump-

tions that both low and high degrees of loyalty lead to high degrees of creativity
(R2 = .11; F [1, 67] = 4.08, p < .05). The lowest point on the curve was estimated to
3.15 of creativity at a score of 3.35 of organizational loyalty, which are within one
standard deviation of both, indicating that mean values of loyalty concur with
mean values of creativity.

142

43-2-09.p65 74 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In the prevailing literature loyalty and creativity have been largely considered
as incompatibilities, i.e. the one can only exist at the expense of the other. How-
ever, increasingly more organizations operate under conditions which demand
both loyalty to organizational rules and creativity simultaneously in order to
adequately meet demands for both efficiency and adaptation. Therefore, it has
been important to reveal how these two central organizational concepts relate to
each other.
Low degrees of loyalty to rules and routines may of course express negative
attitudes to the organization. However, such attitudes are not likely to be a source
of constructive ideas towards improvements of working methods and routines. A
more reasonable explanation is that low degrees of loyalty reflect a lack of rules,
or feelings of being governed by inadequate rules. Without adequate rules and
routines employees may lack coordination and the opportunity to practice and
drill for rapid and automatic responses and methods of operation, which have
proved decisive in critical situations (cf. Kern, 1997; Weick, 1987; 1990). The of-
ficers may therefore consider the situation as unbearable and in need of being
improved and changed. Thus, conventional assumptions of creativity flourishing
in the absence of formalization do not seem to hold in this case. The combination
of a low score on loyalty and a high score on creativity is not necessarily a mani-
festation of the coercive and restrictive characteristics of rules as these may in
fact — in the eyes of employees — be seen as conducive to innovative practices
and the promotion of new ideas. The relationship between loyalty and creativity
may therefore be regarded as harmonious rather than contradictory.
Even if this study has searched for explanations mainly through (external)
organizational variables, parts of the explanations may lie in personal character-
istics. For instance, researchers have noticed that disciplinary organizations search
for persons that fit into a system of order and hierarchy (cf. Baron & Greenberg,
1990; Holland, 1985; Kirton & Pender, 1982). For these persons it might be
unsatisfactory not to be guided by rules. This feeling may be sufficient to initiate
creative behavior.
No matter which of these explanations is most valid, they add new explana-
tions for why absence of rules results in creativity.
A reasonable explanation of why high degrees of loyalty seem to correlate with
high degrees of creativity is that employees feel that they ought to comply with
many rules which they believe offer them support in their daily work, but that
these need to be improved or changed continuously in order to fulfill their inten-
tions, and further that the employees consider themselves as competent to do
this job (cf. Schulman, 1993). The data presented in this study therefore modify
Ford’s (1996) hypothesis that creativity will be rejected as long as habitual ac-
tions remain more attractive. Sooner, the findings presented here suggest that
creativity can be fostered even when, or in fact because habitual actions are at-
tractive. More than likely, organizations would not have developed improvements
without the employees being acutely familiar with the existing rules — only then
can weaknesses be adequately revealed. In other words, the comprehensive

143

43-2-09.p65 75 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

character of the rules and their importance combined with the recognition that
the surroundings, the technology and the organization all have the potential of
surprises, support the validity of the relationship between creativity and loyalty.
Another possible explanation could be that in a disciplinary organization a
high score on loyalty is judged as a signal of trustworthiness among the employ-
ees rendering them goodwill in the eyes of the leadership, which again may prove
necessary since voicing ideas of change of rules might be perceived by the orga-
nization as a kind of rebellion or insubordination involving personal risk for the
employees (cf. Basadur, 1997). Furthermore, several researchers have maintained
that creativity depends on organizational environments and work structures char-
acterized by high levels of activity, frequent interaction, cooperative and interde-
pendent behavior and equality (cf. Tesluk, Farr & Klein, 1997). An important
condition for meeting such demands is that conflicts and stress are kept at a low
level, for which rules and routines have proved efficient.
However, since it can be difficult to demonstrate cause and effect in studies
based upon data gathered simultaneously, we cannot rule out that creativity is
the cause of loyalty. For instance, if employees are given the opportunity to pro-
pose ideas of improving or developing rules, they will also be loyal to them, since
they may regard them as their own.
The officers scoring neither low nor high on adherence to rules appear to be
only moderately enthusiastic as to voicing ideas of improvements. A reasonable
explanation could be that these officers believe the rules guiding their work are
good and appropriate, and that they consequently think suggestions for improve-
ments are a waste of time. In that respect we may have revealed what Weick and
Westley (1996) have characterized as an optimal or a balanced relationship be-
tween exploitation and exploration.
What theoretical and practical conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the
arguments, data and interpretations presented? First, considering rules as struc-
ture and the voicing of ideas as action, the arguments, data and interpretations
support the action-structure paradox as proposed by Van de Ven and Poole (1988):
action requires structure, yet structure only exists through action. Second, the U-
shaped relationship between loyalty and creativity reflects the dynamics and com-
plexity characterizing organizations exposed to demanding and ambiguous
environments. Third, given that organizations will be dependent on both loyalty
and creativity in the future, they might profit from dividing loyalty into two com-
ponents, one operational, meaning compliance with rules and routines, and one
intellectual, reflecting obligation to promote improvements based on experience
gathered through rule adherence. As such, organizations may need to revise both
their management ideas and remuneration and sanction system, since promot-
ing ideas of change to existing routines may be perceived by the leadership of a
conformist organization as a type of insubordination deserving punishment.
Our findings are primarily valid for the type of disciplinary organizations stud-
ied (military and perhaps police organizations), and should not be generalized
beyond these. However, the relationship between loyalty and creativity could be
perceived as universal, reflecting a basic conflict between stability and efficiency
on the one hand, and renewal and survival on the other (cf. Gouldner, 1959). As

144

43-2-09.p65 76 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

such the findings may pertain to a broader range of organizations – especially

those exposed to rapidly changing environments demanding constant improve-
ments of procedures and rules while simultaneously striving to maintain efficiency
and safety through strict adherence to these. Examples include aviation, air traf-
fic control, shipping and nuclear power plants, sometimes referred to as high
reliability organizations (cf. Klein, Bigley & Roberts, 1995).
Still, caution is necessary regarding the representativity of the results. Since
all the data were collected simultaneously, common method bias may have oc-
curred. The low number of respondents makes the validity of the findings an is-
sue. The degree to which employees have been exposed to organizational change
processes may have affected their responses. For instance, comprehensive orga-
nizational changes mean exposure to new environments to which it takes time to
adjust and cultivate mutual trust, but which simultaneously may require the adop-
tion of new and innovative practices. Future research should therefore explicitly
control for the moderating effects of organizational change processes. Further-
more, there may be zones or divisions within an organization more open to cre-
ativity than others. For instance, staff work may be less open to new ideas than
field operations, as the latter confront concepts, technology and rules more di-
rectly with their practical applicability. Also, creativity may emerge at different
levels of the organization and appear with different degrees of intensity at differ-
ent stages in the organization’s life (cf. Mintzberg, 1989). Also, loyalty may vary
with levels and zones. Future research should therefore control for such varia-
tions. Moreover, our study did not include instruments capable of measuring how
satisfaction and efficiency were affected by variations in loyalty and creativity.
Quinn and Cameron (1988) as well as Weick and Westley (1996) have suggested
that a balanced relationship between formalization and creativity would be the
best solution as a high score on one or the other would paralyze the organization.
Future research should thus examine empirically whether mean values of the
two, as indicated by the lowest point of the curve in this study (see Figure 1), in
fact represent an optimal solution measured against, say, job satisfaction and
some outcome or efficiency indicator.
Despite its weaknesses, this study has challenged traditional views of the rela-
tionship between loyalty and creativity in a particular type of organization that
has thus far, albeit it to a limited extent, been the object of creativity studies. The
explanation also undermines conventional wisdom in that it refers to interactions
between positive and enabling aspects of rules and routines, their impermanence,
the organization’s sanction and remuneration system and the egoistic motives of
employees.
REFERENCES
ADLER, P. A., & ADLER, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 401-417
ADLER, P. S., & BORYS, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 61-90
ADLER, P. S., GOLDOFTAS, B., & LEVINE, D. l. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model
changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43-68
ALLAN, N. J., & MEYER, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

145

43-2-09.p65 77 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Loyalty and Creativity in a Disciplinary Organization

AMABILE, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 10, 123-167.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment
for creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39, 1154-1184
BARON, R. A., & GREENBERG, J. (1990). Behavior in organizations (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
BARRET, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational
learning. Organization Science, 9, 605-622
BASADUR, M. (1997). Organizational development interventions for enhancing creativity in the workplace.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 59-72
BIGLEY, G. A., & ROBERTS, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High reliability organizing for complex
and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281-1299
BURNS, T., & STALKER, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock
CHEN, Z. X., TSUI, A. S., & FARH, JIING-LIH (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment:
Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 339-356
CLEGG, S. R. & HARDY, C. (1996). Conclusion: Representations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.),
Handbook of organization studies (pp. 676-708). London: SAGE Publications
COHEN, J., COHEN, P., WEST, S. G., & AIKEN, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
DAMANPOUR, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590
DEWETT, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40,
27-45
DUNLAP JR., V. J. (1999). The police-ization of the military. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 27,
217-232
DUNIVIN, K. O. (1996). Military culture: Change and continuity. In R. L. Taylor & W. E. Rosenbach (Eds.),
Military leadership. In pursuit of excellence (3rd ed.) (pp. 181-195). Boulder: WestviewPress
ETZIONI, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. London: The Free Press
FASTABEND, D. A., & SIMPSON, R. H. (2004). Adapt or die. Army, 54, 15-22
FORD, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 1112-1142
GIBSON, C. B., & BIRKENSHAW, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226
GOULDNER, A. W. (1954). The problem of loyalty in groups under tension. Social Problems, 2, 82-88
GOULDNER, A. W. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton, L. Broom & S. Cottrell (Eds.), Sociology
today (pp. 400-428). New York: Basic Books
HOLLAND, J. (1985). Making vocational choices. A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
ISAKSEN, S. G. (2007). The climate for transformation: Lessons for leaders. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 16, 3-15
JANSSEN, O., DE VRIES, T., & COZIJNSEN, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: An
empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations,
51, 945-967
KERN, T. (1997). Redefining airmanship. New York: McGraw-Hill
KIRKHAUG, R., & HALVARI, H. (1998). Relations among freedom of action, goal orientation, coupling, and
satisfaction with frame management among school managers. Psychological Reports, 83, 339-352.
KIRTON, M. J., & PENDER, S. (1982). The adaptation-innovation continuum, occupational-type, and course-
selection. Psychological Reports, 51, 882-886
KLAAS, B. S., GAINEY, T. W., & DELL’OMO, G. G. (1999). The determinants of disciplinary system effectiveness:
A line-management perspective. Industrial Relations, 38, 542-553
KLEIN, R. L., BIGLEY, G. A., & ROBERTS, K. H. (1995). Organizational culture in high reliability
organizations: An extension. Human Relations, 48, 771-793
KOLARSKA, L., & ALDRICH, H. (1980). Exit, voice and silence: Consumers’ and managers’ responses to
organizational decline. Organization Studies, 1, 41-58
LEWIS, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 760-776
MCCOY, J. M. (2005). Linking physical work environment to creative context. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
39, 169-191
MINTZBERG, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. London: The Free Press

146

43-2-09.p65 78 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

MOWDAY, R. T., STEERS, R. M., & PORTER, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247
OLDHAM, G. R., & CUMMINGS, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634
PERROW, C. (1999). Normal accidents. Living with high risk technologies. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press
POTTER, E. H., ROSENBACH, W. E., & PITTMAN, T. S. (1996). Leading the new professional. In R. L. Taylor &
W. E. Rosenbach (Eds.), Military leadership. In pursuit of excellence (3rd ed.) (pp. 145-152). Boulder:
WestviewPress
QUINN, R. E., & CAMERON, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation. A framework for viewing organization
and management. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory
of change in organization and management (pp. 289-308). Cambridge. MA: Ballinger
REASON, J. (2005) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate
RON, N., LIPSHITZ, R., & POPPER, M. (2006). How organizations learn: Post-flight reviews in an F-16 squadron.
Organization Studies, OnlineFirst, May 17, DOI: 10.1177/01708406064567
ROYAL PROPOSITION, No 42: The modernizing of the defence
RUSBULT, C. E., FARREL, D., ROGERS, G., & MAINOUS, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative mode of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 599-527
SCALES, R. H. (2005). Urban warfare: A soldier’s view. Military Review, 85, 9-18
SCHULMAN, P. R. (1993). The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Administration & Society, 25,
353-372
SEVASTOS, P., SMITH, L., & CORDERY, J. L. (1992). Evidence on the reliability and construct validity of Warr’s
(1990) well-being and mental health measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
65, 33-50
SHAMIR, B., & BEN-ARI, E. (2000). Changes of military leadership in changing armies. Journal of Political
and Military Sociology, 28, 43-59
SOETERS, J., & RECHT, R. (1998). Culture and discipline in military academies: An international comparison.
Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 26, 169-189
STAW, B. M., SANDELANDS, L. E., & DUTTON, L. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior:
A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524
TAYLOR, R. L., & ROSENBACH, W. E. (1996) (Eds.). Military leadership. In pursuit of excellence. (3rd ed.)
Oxford: WestviewPress
TESLUK, P. E., FARR, J. L., & KLEIN, S. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual
creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 27-41
VAN DE VEN, A. H., & POOLE, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In
R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in
organization and management (pp. 19-63). Cambridge. MA: Ballinger
WEICK, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly,
21, 1-19
WEICK, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review,
XXIX, 112-127
WEICK, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal Management,
16, 571-593
WEICK, K. E. & ROBERTS, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations. Heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381
WEICK, K. E., & WESTLEY, F. (1996). Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 440-458). London: SAGE Publications
WILDAVSKY A. (1988). Searching for safety. London: Transaction Books
WITHEY, M. J., & COOPER, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34, 521-539
WOODMAN, R. W., SAWYER & GRIFFIN, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy
of Management Review, 18, 293-321
ZHOU, J., & GEORGE, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression
of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-696
Rudi Kirkhaug, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Tromsoe, Faculty of Social Science, N-9037
Tromsoe, Norway. Email: rudi.kirkhaug@uit.no

147

43-2-09.p65 79 6/16/2009, 10:18 AM

Black