Teehnovation 115 (2022) 102473 ‘Contents lists available at ScenceDinest Technovation ELSEVIER journal homepage: www elsevier comlocsterechnovtion How to manage creativity in organizations: Connecting the literature on organizational creativity through bibliometric research Mahdieh A. Fetrati’”, David Hansen’, Payman Akhavan‘ * oparnent of Maris and Product, Aa, Unvesp, Demerk Diesen of Tecan ato hey of Suen Denar, Derm * garnet of nar Egon, Gam Unter of Tsing, am, Pon ARTICLE INFO ApsTRACT Tomwerte To be compete, organizations mist alo be innovative, making organiational cea a eocal capability ‘Accordingly, the past decade has seen an increasing actencion among scholers to fields such es innovation, orgenlzaionl performance, and eeativiy. Nevertheless, studies in organizational ceatity, Le, the mansge rent of ecatiity at an organizational level, ae still fragmeated and have not converged fat single Creatvity in order to map the ilferen perspectives on the subject and provide direction fr fture research The paper thoroughly explores the iterate through bibliographic restrch on papers published between 1980 and 2020. The literature Is mapped, categorized, and analyzed to deal the diferent models of organizational treaty, Le concepts, definitions, and theories, The paper identifies seven models and shows tht fel ould Converge by connecting evo tricks ofthe erate: the track ofthe dyeamiccomponetil model wits the tac ofthe personal and contextual factors. Furthermore, the paper uses tis insight to propese prectial guidelines for managing creativity by mapping contextual factors tthe ndidua, team, nd onganitional levels that canbe ‘sed with the dynam components] model 1. Introduction Innovation is vital for the existence of and growth of organizations “They need to capture new ideas and concepts and adapt to continuous change (Akiiavan and tloseini, 2016). Organizations are concerned with the two closely zelated terms creativity and innovation. Creativity is the generation of new and useful ideas in organizations, while inno- vation Is the successful implementation of these new ideas (Woodman ‘tal, 1993; Gaspersz, 2005). Creativity ean thus be said to serve as a seed for innovation (\nabile, 1998). In order for organizations to develop more innovative products, processes or services, they need t0 ‘manage creativity as an organizational phenomenon and understand how to promote the generation of rove idea. This ability requires the ‘management of creativity inside the organization, The creativity of the individual employees in the organization is an Jmportant source of innovation. However, the recruitment of new cre ative employees is not suficient to make creativity as a source of ‘organizational effectiveness (Woodman etal, 1993) and organizational capability (Amabile, 1998). In order to utilize creativity at the * Corresponding author. organizational level, organizations need to develop their organizational structures to enable innovative processes (Dzillas and Biine, 2019) ‘These considerations call for research on organizational creativity as ‘more than the sum of the individual, team, and collective levels of éreativty and to place greater emphasis on the ways organizations can ‘manage creativity. Even though organizational creativity has been studied as a concept since the late 1980s, theres stil no clear consensus about its definition, The concept of organizational ereativity was initially considered a less explored branch of innovation management studies (Woodman tal, 1993). Initial studies of organizational reaivity were divided into two approaches: the individval/cllective level and the organizational contextual level. At the individual and colletive level, organizational creativity was understood asthe creativity generated by an individval or group of people within an organization, The psychological perspective ord, 1996), individualistic exeatvity perspective, social ezeativity (arrington, 1990), employee driven innovation, intrapersonal and interpersonal creativity. (Cslkszentmihaly! and Gardner, 1994) ae among different perspectives of ereatvity within an organization. The Email adresses asi yshoo.com (MA, Few), dav itsdu dk (D, Hansen), skavaniqutcc.is(P, AKRavan), hepsi ong/20.1016/cechnovaion 2022102473 Received 20 June 2020; Received in revise frm 11 December 2021; Accepted 28 January 2022 ‘Available online 16 February 2022 (0166-4972/ 2022 Elsevier 4d, Al sights reserved,‘approach of the organizational contextual evel is used, among others, by Woodman etal (1993) who refers to organizational creativity a the ‘production of novel and useful outcomes by people working together in ‘complex organizational context In this model, orgenizational crea- tivity is understood as « multilevel phenomenon considering the three levels ofthe individual, the team, and the organization. This approach is shared by Andriopoulos (2001) and NlcLean (2005), who argue that ‘organizational creativity Is determined by contextual factors sue as ‘organizational culture, resources, and skills ‘Other scholars have expanded these two approaches by studying the relationship between individval ereativity and innovation such as ‘Amabile (1997) and individual ereatvity and organizational creativity ‘such as Bharadwaj end Menon (2000) and Oldham and Cummings (2996). Research on collective creativity has also been carried out, ‘which was considered similar to organizational creativity (Hargadon ‘and Bechky, 20065 Kljn and Tomie, 2010), Although organizational creativity has now been studied for three decades, it has still not been shaped into a coherent concept by the literature, This absence of consensus on the nature ofthe subject pre= ‘vents practitioners from learning about atopic of great importance. ‘This paper aims at identifying the various aspects of organizational ‘creativity asa concept in the literature in order to investigate the re- lationships berween organizational creativity and its related fields. The research questions are: ‘+ What are the connections between the literature on organizational creativity? “+ What models of organizational creativity are presented and how do they relate to each other? “+ What advice does the literature provide with respect to managing organizational creativity? 2. Methodology In onder to answer the research questions, this paper conducts a bibliogcaphic research of papers published between 1980 and 2020. The ntify the eifferent models and theories of organiza- the literature and the factors and context related to ‘organizational creativity. Furthermore, the paper investigates the re- lationships between the publications by creating a citation map and ‘alegorization of co-citations. The literature is subsequenty scrutinized {in order to identity the different models of organizational creativity that fare used to give advice based on the current literature on managing ‘organizational creativity. The paper reviewed the organizational crea- tivity literature as a bibliographic review. Inthe review, @ comprehen sve search of the database Web of Science was conducted (?'soophian cc al, 2021), Im the first step, organizational creativity and related keywords were used to search the literature published during 1980-2020, and 5526 articles were identified, Then papers from fields ‘unrelated to organizational creativity (such as medical, information| system, geography, envizonmental study, architectural and urban study) ‘were omitted, leaving 3226 articles. In the next step, the publications ‘that had the term “organizational creativity either asa keyword, oF in Uhr tle or abstract were selected, Finally, the full body text was scrutinized in the identified publications. Both the terminology of Innovation and creativity were used, In the fnal selection, ater check- ing all she selected articles, 512 documents were included in the stud ‘The data was analyzed using HistCite software to map influent publications in the research field as well asthe interrelations between ‘hese publications, allowing for an assessment ofthe evelopment ofthe topie (Borer et al, 20035 Janssen etal, 2006; Janssen, 2007), In the ‘next ste, the fll citation and bibliographic records were imported to ‘the program (such as full records of the article's citation information, enon 115 2022) 102473 including the tle, abstract and the cited referenced lis). The ‘completeness of records was checked and, inthe cases, where anything was missing, it was added manually. The software was then used {0 calculate the Total Global Citation Score (TGCS) refering tothe total score in Web of Science forall the publications of an author and source, {he Total Local Citation Score (TLCS) that shows the frequency of local Citation inside the collection. Furthermore, TLCS/t and TGCS/t were ‘calculated, TL¢8/ts the total loal citation score per yea from the time the research papers’ publication to the end of the sample period, while ‘TGCS/t is the frequency of annual citation based on the database. Finally, LS, shows the average LCS per year since the publication date ‘and GCS/t shows the average GCS per year since the publication date. Based on the bibliometric analysis, the paper identified the most cited authors, journals, and keywords Based on the different bibliometric analyses, the papers in the database were scrutinized in order to identify the most influential a les in the field of organizational ereativty. This was finally done by selecting the top 20 papers with the highest TGCS. ‘The top 20 most influential papers were then scrutinized to identify ‘what conceptual models of organizational creativity that were used in ‘the papers. This was done by analyzing all ofthe articles, and thoroughly identify the conceptual model of organizational creativity, the defini tion, the foundational theory and the contribution to the field. While ‘some papers presented their own conceptual mode', others relied on ‘existing models previously published, i, review papers or primarily ‘empirical papers. This analysis led tothe formulation of a conceptual ‘overview of the fled, presented ina table In order to answer the research question of how the models of “organizational creativity relates to each other, an analysis was earcied ‘out ofthe top 20 papers and their relationships to each other. This was ‘done by mapping which papers cite each other (denominated *), which ‘discuss each other (Genominated *), and whieh uses another paper's ‘model as theoretical foundation (denominated ***). This analysis was ‘mapped in a timeline to show the conceptual relationships in the liter ature base of organizational creativity. ‘The presented analyses were then used to analyze the relationships in the literature and to identify gaps in che Iterature, yielding a list of actors identified in one part of the literature but omitted in another ‘at. These identified factors were then discussed to bridge the literature ‘gap and yield new insights about how to manage organizational crea tivity in practice, > Keywords (in topes): organi creativ, innovat* = 8526 records. > _Exchislon of unrelated flelds 3226 records > Selection based on title, keywords, abstract = 917 records > _Fullbody review of articles = 512 records > Analysis with HistCite software = selection of top 20 most influencial papers > Document analysis of top 20 += identification of seven models of organizational creativity > Conceptual relationship analysis ofthe seven models += mapping of corceptual relationships in the top 20 papers Fig. 1. Methodology and bbllomete selection erie‘Table 8. Analyses of the connections within the organizational ‘creativity literature The frst result ofthe bibliometric study isan overview ofthe authors with the most cited publications, In Table 1, the authors with the most tations are listed based on the TLCS of their articles. It was necessary to revise the table we got from the software because the co-authors were also listed in that table, The frst author is Woodman with a TCLS of 87 ‘and TGCS of 1617 and the second author inthe list is Amabile with a ‘TLCS of 61 and TGCS 1805, The next finding is related tothe identification of journals that have the highest TGCS and the most publications, Ibe 2 shows the name of 15 journals with the highest TGCS published in the field of organiza tonal creativity. The first journal is “Academy of Management Review which has a TGCS of 2259 and a TLCS of 132. “Academy of Management Journal” with TGC 1865 and TLCS 87, "Research in Organizational ‘Behavior’ with TGCS 1717 and TLCS 58 and "Journal of Management With TGCS 653 and TLCS 33 are in the following places. These jouenals have the highest TLCS as well. "Creativity and Innovation Management Penoaion 1152022) 102473 thas published the most articles (33 records) and “Journal of Product Innovation Management” has published 14 articles and “Creativity Research Journal” has 13 published articles inthe Geldof organizational creativity ‘Another finding isthe most cited articles, which have been studied according to the frequency with which they use the related terms. A list ofthe most frequently used terms inthe publications was generated and, 8 expected, the most frequent was the word “creativity.” The word “innovation” came second, which demonstrates the lese relationship of ‘this word tothe word “creativity” in this area of research, According to {his ist, the most related words and areas are innovation, performance, leadership, climate, knowledge, development, effects, social, support, individual, behavior, strategy, psychological, learning, team, sans {ormational, leader, cultural. Ing. 2, the elation of TLCS, TGCS and ‘numberof records bese on the related words has been shown. Note that the words “creativity” and “innovation” have been excluded from ig, 2 According to Fig. 2, quite a high number of articles considered Leadership in thei stay and, relatively high number of TLCS ané TGCS. related to leadership In spite ofthis, the number of records for “Org rizational Contextual” is lower than “leadership” but both TLCS and ‘TGCS are significantly higher, Additionally, the term “sense-making” has avery low number of records, whereas the TLCS and TGCS are relatively high for this word and this result shows the high quality of artiles that took this topic into consideration in their studies ig. 8 shows the trend of significant increase in the numberof pub: lication and distribution of number of articles, according to TLCS and ‘TGCS, in the period between 1988 and 2019, According to this Rgue, the highest values of TGCS and TLCS are forthe articles published before 2000, "This vas to be expected since the numberof citations from high- ‘ually articles will inerease overtime aa more recent articles therefore mostly have lower citation scores than the early articles that have been cited by scholars for decades. By checking the number of records, it ‘Table The most led Journals sored by TOCS. endef Manageet Review 7 1 2 786 ‘ead of Management re a @ 6s 1703 Journal of Ocapsonl a Oranietna Paychaogy 4 4 a dsr Aeadeship Quarterly 2 220 1222 bles The most ced articles sorted by TLCS. “Toward ry of oruatna eaiy Wontar sal, 1995) an 1ay 778 ‘Mode of rents and eatin In rguiatone re, 18) tye 175208 ‘Mulleve theodnng and reat) in naniatons a serseshingperspetv (29, 199) 130 se When clint feria some resis alse A el dy of pola ving a work ler ny 2008) 137 as nor Pot erty to nar the mpnon of ete a in organantions (se) ie 1782286 ‘Stone inoraso: Felting the supperion td implementation of ens (ol =n, 200) 2 Gs? a mar Avakening employee creativity, the role of leader emotanalitellgene (Za! Goong 200°) 7039 anafurthermore seems tobe the cae thatthe number of records aze stable ‘until 2008, and after 2008 the numberof articles inerease exponentially, Which shows that this topic has been subject to moze attention from scholars in recent years. Moreover, in 2014, the TGCS and TLCS are relatively high, which shows thatthe articles published inthis yeer have hhad a significant impact on more recent studies, Additionally TLCS ia 1988, 1993, 1996 and 2014 constitute almost 10%, 1595, 10% and 10% ‘ofall the citations in the literature respectively, which isconsistent with the information in Table 3 ‘Table 9 lists the ten most influential papers sorted on TLCS of the database of 512 records, The most cited paper in the local database is elnoaton 115 2022) 102473 “Toward a theory of organizational creativity” with @ TLCS of 87 and a ‘TGCS of 1617 (Woosman et al, 1993), the second most cited is “A model ‘ofreativity and innovation organizations" witha TLCS of 58 and a TGCS ‘of 1717 (Amabile, 2988), and the third is “Employee ereatity, personal ‘and contextual factors at work” with & TLCS of 57 and a TGCS of 1453 (Oldham and Cummings 1996). ‘The final ten articles of the top 20 are Paulus and Yang MeLean (2008), Bledow etal, (2008), Bharadwaj and Menon Ramus (2001), Harvey (2014), Kikuit and Van Den Ende (2000, 2000), (2007), ‘Mainemelis and Ronson (2006), Amabile and Pratt (2026), and Mathisen and Einarsen (2004), ge 3 = 3 z Fx eas ates Fig. 2, The most used terms in most ited articles. : 5 2 8 3 2 z Fig. 3. The dlsuibutlon of TGCS, 1165 and number of records during tine4. Analysis of the models of organizational ereativity in the Titerature ‘The identified top 20 most influential papers of organizational ‘creativity were seruinized in order to identify the models of organiza- onal creaivty used in the literature. For each identified conceptual ‘model, the concept, the definition, and the main contribution tothe field ‘were listed. The analysis showed that seven papers presented an orginal conceptual model, while the rest of te papers relied on these previously Published models. For example, review papers such as Nathisen and inarsen (2004), McLean (2008), Bledow etl, (2008), and Anderse ‘al (2014) used one or more ofthe other models, but did not propose ‘any new model. Inthe same way, Paulis and Yang (2000), Kijkuit and Van Den Ende (2007), Bharadwaj and Menon (2000), and Axtell et al (2000) were empirical papers that used the conceptual models of ‘organizational creativity from other papers, Finally, two of the papers ‘extended previous models, but did not present an original model, ie., CGumusluoglu and sev (2009) extend the Woodman eal. (1993) model and Amabile and Prat (2016) extend the Arable (1988) model. Tabie 4 presents the seven key conceptual models of the organizational crea- tivity field based on the comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Table 4s ‘based onthe entire literature base and is sorted by TLCS, making it more ‘comprehensive than similar reviews ofthe field, eg. by Andersen eta 2014). Inthe interactionist model of organizational creativity (Woodman ct ., 1993; Woodman 2008), a multi-level model of organizational ‘creativity is presented. This model emphasizes that creativity arises asa ‘result ofa complicated interaction between individuals and their work situation a diferent organizational levels. This model proposes a cre ative performance of the socal system, whichis an aggregation from the ‘creative performance of groups, and the organizational facilitation of ‘reatvity (\oodinan ct al, 1993), The individual level considers per- sonality, cognitive style, intrinsic motivation, knowledge, socal, and ‘contextual influences, At the group level, the group composition, char- ‘acteristics and processes are considered, and at the organizational level, the aggregation of individual and group level are considered. The in- teractions model pays more attention to the team and group level ‘creativity compared to the componential model. This model develops elnoaton 115 2022) 102473 the perspective of interactional psychology to bear on the integration of process, product, person, and situation into a more comprehensive theory of organizational ereatvity than previously proposed (e.g. by ‘Amabile, 1988). ‘The componential model of organizational creativity and innovation by Amabile (1988) deseribes Uae ereaive proces as constituted by three ‘elements: the domain relevant skills (knowledge and technical sil), the ‘creativity relevant skills (cognitive thinking style, working style, and personality characteristics) and intrinsic motivation. In this model, ‘creativity is atthe intersection ofthese three elements. Ina later paper, Amabile (1997) also proposes that contextual factors either inhibit oF facilitate creativity within the organizations and considers the role ofthe ‘workplace environment, In this model, they proposed a systematic approach to organizational creativity and suggests the importance of influential factors. In their review of contextual factors conducive to ‘reativity, Shalley etal (2004), for instance, claim that all contextual factors impact intrinsic motivation, which becomes the mediator be ‘ween context and employees’ creative output. Tis model also received ‘some empirical support for components as well a the cole ofthe mot vation component (Szalley et al. 2004; Zhou and George, 2003) Furthermore, Woodman etal. (1993) bulld on Amabile's (1988) view bat individual and context are contingent in creative processes and ‘resented another comprehensive model of organizational creativity. ‘The madel presented by Oldham and Cumings (1996) is generally ‘consistent with earlier interactions approaches to understanding ‘creativity (Amabile, 1988; Woodman et s!, 1999) and suggests that ‘management should consider both personal and contextual factors to increase creativity in work organizations. In their personal and ‘contextual ereativity model, Oa an Cummings (1986) consider the contribution of employee's creativty-relevant personal characteristics ‘and organizational characteristics such as jab complexity, supportive, and controlling supervision. The model highlights how creative work ‘happens when employees have appropriate creativity-relevant charac teristics, work on complex and challenging tasks, and ae supervised ina supportive and non-contolling envionment. Their results suggest that if creativity at work is to be enhanced, an individualized or selective approach to management may be warranted. For example, individuals With high levels of ereativity-relevant personal eharacterisies might be ‘Tabled ‘Summary ofthe seven mast influential models of organizational creativity, ‘Mote of ink ance Detion ‘onebaten awe aoa estty Tetrion model Organs Gestion ffl ad aval oicomer el ean adel of Toward tary of oraninonl nese cranes Sy pope who werk eolcsly ina ogenizatna cresy ceri (onusen 1) Componenti mel Gratin ‘Genvy related ote peeration of Componenti mal ofceatviyn Am feretvty and innovation es 3 orpnstone ‘Selden where nrasn emainlyorgnitons ‘ergnemion (os 198), Pena and Crest in pesema! roduc, leas or proces that ati Organzton! owed core ‘Smpoye cre: penal and Conte fore sndeontetal ‘oo conditions I) pew or a! 2) eipeive Arpanet Incentive a eps of wher Fememaking the outcomes re ell noel | feel cute Ccalecivecopstion Caeetvecreatity—_Caleetve cretviy omeges as reel protic of maresay ellie Dialectic model of —Syetesscrestvty ‘The etegaon of rp mnber erarcinary aru especies the banat or ow rey ‘eon nes = 10 lander emnional Gray inthe ve outer tog which he ema ineigenee swerpace ‘cesiy of ranetons] eter comet aca 2 werk (lane ‘Cama 1998) competi Csr inerton inta-rgeiaonl sexo lathe pepe (vain 995) Model of cesive creston ‘When cottons of cree become eave calves Bld sy of Probe soving a week ton {rate Sits: Exper the proces of exorary eee eaiy Clare. 2009) ‘The proces of ev yates can ely powpeto pode breakup est rere to aeiee cxaoday owls ser errs! liens in fve _Aeaktingenployee crest The reve otra uence mating, Tle of leader emotion nelgeee tables pomete employers sratiy evan George 2002)Identified through use of assessment instruments such asthe CPS (Cre ative Personality Seale) and the normative baselines that accompany these instruments (Gout, 1975), ‘The collective creativity model (Hargadon and Bechley, 2006) eom- siders collective patterns of interrelated accivities between clifferent ‘people in groups overtime (Hargadon and Bech, 20065 Welek eta. 2008). The level of involvement of people in group, their attention to ‘others, and ther engagement ae all erucal factors in determining thelr relationship with the group (Hargadon and Rechky, 2000). In this, ‘model, the focus is more onthe group inthe organization, and collective ‘creativity is considered a social proces, Furthermore, this model adapts the Amabile (1988) perspeetive that ereatve solutions are built fom the recombination of existing ideas as well as the individual component in the componential model In the mule-level and sense making theory by Drazin etal. (1999), ‘they aimed to complement theoretical contribution by Ariabile (1988) and Woodman etal. (1993) In this theory, they present the multilevel ‘theory of creativity within organizations in which they define creativity ‘8a process of engagement in “creative acts”, In thelr view, organiza ‘tional creativity isa product of negotiating multiple, competing interests ‘between various communities or groups within an organization. To them, it consists specifically of the creative engagement of different ‘communities. The model has organizational creativity comprising of a number of complex interdependencies, through which indiviguals, ‘communities, and organizational systems can affect creativity in orga- nizations (Drazin ct a, 1999). The aim of the model is to understand how individuals engage in creative endeavors at multiple levels rather than searching for regularities and factors that contribute to an increase in creative output. Managerial understanding and frames of reference ‘are central for the model “The leader emotional intelligence model (Zhou and George (2003), ‘Tables How te top 20 papers are connected to the fve model of orgenzstionl creativity. elnoaton 115 2022) 102473 proposes five routes through which ereativity ean be awakened in the ‘workplace and also propose that emational intelligence provides leaders with the capability to use these routes to effectively promote creativity ‘among their subordinates (Zou and George. 2003). They used the ‘definition of ereativity inthe workplace asthe production of novel and useful ideas or solutions ust as Amabile, 1988 Oldham and Cummings, 1996). The model builds on the personal and contextual factors for ‘reativity madel (Oldham and Cummings, 1996) and furthermore con siders the creativity-elated supervisor behaviors such as being sup- Portve in a non-contolling manner. In the dialectical model presented by Harvey (2014) she proposes ‘that the process of creative synthesis imprave the chance that a group's idea becomes breakthrough. Synthesis ereatvity is defined as Integr Lon of group members’ perspectives. In this model, the Hargadon and Bechiky (2006) theory of moments of collective erestivity as involving not only the original question, but also considering whether there is @ better question to be asked is used. Furthermore, the mode! builds on Amabile's (1998) definition of ereatvity as usefulness and novel ideas, ‘as well as group members creative thinking sills, In order to answer how the presented models of organizational ‘reatvity relate to each other, an analysis was carried out onthe top 20, papers to identify relationships. Each paper was analyzed to identify ‘which of the conceptual models the paper either had a weak, moderate ‘or strong relationship to (See aie 5) and then the relationships were ‘mapped in a timeline to identify any track in the development of the literature base (sce Fi. 4)-For simplification ony five ofthe conceptual ‘models are shown in Table 5, a Zsow and George (2003) was not cited by in the top 20 and Harvey (2014) was published so late in the timeline ‘that it had no other ettations from the top 20 papers, not even Amabile and Prat (2016). ig. 4 shows, there isa primary track of convergence in the literature ‘ale ‘Componente aedel(—_otaactinas nel ero and conte ‘Mllevel aon andsease——_Calav realy rie, 198), (oes 1953) ‘eats mel raking perspective Imodel non, 2005) {ran 1996) (Oran999)| ‘arable (98) wa NA NA WA ‘Woodman ea a NA NA NA rey thay a ” ” WA Na (Comming (19%) Drsin eral (1999) ~ ” ” wa Protrandvae a - : NA (2000) Ase etal 2000) : ” - NA Bharadeajand . - . NA ‘Menon (2000) anus (2501) . . Na (2003) usa 2004) Mee (005) - ” . wa iow ea (2000) . . - - ae (2012) - : : - : ‘Giaton oly = Discusion of the theory ‘Not eplleable due to tnaline= MeLean (2005) \ Guat 2009) einoaton 115 2022) 102473 aradnaj& Menon (2000) “OO Paulas & Yong (2000 Ramus 2001) © Mathis & Hinarsen (2008) Fig. 4 A timeline of rlationships in the Iitereture on organizational creativity. (track A), that conneets four of the top seven models, which ends with the two comprehensive models presented by Arable and Pratt (2018) ‘and Harvey (2014). They both have strong conceptual connections t0 ‘the componential model (Amabile, 1988) and the collective creativity ‘model (Hargadon and Bechky, 2006), and at least moderate to ‘multi-level and sensemaking model (Orazin etal, 1999). Amabile and Pratt (2016) furthermore have a strong connection tothe interactionist ‘model (Wocdman et al, 1998). However, none of these papers have a ‘connection tothe personal and contextual factors mode! (1996), which is the second most eited paper in the organizational eeatvity literature Oldham and Cummings (1996) establish a secondary track in the ‘organizational creativity literature, tack B in Fg. 4, represented by ‘Zhou and George (2003) and culminating in Andersen eal. 2014). This ‘track contributes tothe literature with personal and contextual factors, as wellas the role of leader emotional intelligence. While Anderse et (2014) provide a list of contextual factors, they do not connect their contribution to te primary literature track, as they barely mention the ‘models from Drazin etal. (1999) and Hargadon and Bechky (2006) in their otherwise comprehensive review paper, Therefore they do not manage to close the literature gap between the two tacks ‘We argue thatthe organizational creativity literature needs to con- rect the two tracks in order to provide consistent guidelines for practi- Uioners, The main contribution ofthe tack Bis creativity factors such as personal and contextual factors and leaders’ emotional intelligence, ‘hich Andersen et sl (2014) review and organize in an extensive list of actors as supplementary material to their article organized by individ ual, team, and organizational factors. As illustrated on Fis. 4, the divergence between the two tracks oceurs around year 1999, whereatter track A does not cite any ofthe track B papers. To highlight the gap in ‘the literature, we caried outa final analysis Using the structure from Andersen etal (2014), we analyzed the contsbution from track B post ‘year 1999 and compiled it into Table 6 ‘Tables Factors influencing organizational creativity rom tack B post 1999, (indie) Job conte (aria 7 Bele beat elafeny (el = 200) 1 Paductonomnerp (= 200) 1 Pobem eg demand (cs. 200) 1 inv! mtd nal Se, 2050) 1 Netine intennee (ss 2000) 1 eb complet for cretity Qanenes sd ‘enson 2008) + Pepto (ee, 2000) 1 resp safety (Sse, 2000) 1 Tem method cote (ie, 209 1 Team ole read (See, 2090) 1 open dow of comuaintoa (Le, 2095) 1 eedom and atone (es, 2005) * orginal encouragement (Ln, 2005) {me and pce fo ren ies and fesson 2008) + Tine an money ales reson (ets, 200), + Spending oir convention, sural Pros lean) composition (es) cule (rptizationa) Resores Organizational) oe sarc of sme & sraegy (Organist) btgaton and incon pressnr(on=ls siromer + tnveamenial et (sien an Non — 2ntah endehip (Oration) + Leader emotional intaligees (hos snd Coss oo) + Appia nd expression of lender (208 (Genre, 2009) + Tem der support le, 2000) 1 ranfomatonal aden (Caos se, 2005) + Maagement upp ale, 2000) 1 sppor er moran prion (sl 2000) + Ave management vs elitr process (Giedow eta, 2009) + Managing confitiog deans Slate, 2009) + Sperry encouragement (Organizations) Je, 2008)5. Connecting the two tracks Te analysis of the paper shows that bridging the gap ia the orgie izational creativity literature requires track A, which has evolved into the dynamie componential model (Ainabile sod Pratt, 2016), t0 be ine tegrated with the factor from track B, compiled ito Table 6. Te connect tracks A and B, we therefore used the compiled lst of factors to identify ‘hich elements from track B were lacking in track A, represented by the ‘evolution into the dynamie componential model and how they could be integrated into the model (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). The factors are ‘organized atthe individval, team, and organizational levels to have a systematic approach for the discussion, 1. actors atthe individual level that can contribute tothe dyamic ‘omponential mode The dynamic componential model does not consider production ‘ownership (Axtell el, 2000), but this factor could inform the use of the model if taken into consideration as an additional element in the discussion of work orientation (ef. Amabile end Prat, 2016, Table 3, pp. 172), Likewise, the factors of role breadth self-efficacy could be con rected to skills in the task domain, as similar factors are already dis ‘essed (\mabile and Prst, 2016, Pig. 1, pps 161). Furthermore, the factor of job complexity for creativity (iainemelis and Ronson, 2006) Is lacking in the model, but could be connected to the organizational ‘component C, which’ describes the necessary organization of work hhaving an absence of unnecessary layers of hierarchy and bureaucracy in the organization (Amabile anc Pret, 2016, pp. 162). However, the factors of problem solving demand, individual method ‘control, and machine maintenance are already considered in Amebile sd Pratt (2016), albeit based on different authors than the ones we identified in track 8, 5.2. Factors atthe team level tha can contribute to the dynamic ‘componential model Participation involves the degree to which the employees perceive they have influence within the team and organization, eg, regarding {goal-seiting, long-term plans, work processes, ete. (Axtell eta, 2000), ‘This factor could be connected to the dynamic companential model's ‘organizational component C, asi relates tothe way resources such as individuals with the right expertise are participating in the ereative processes. Likewise, the factors of team method control, i.e, the control the team has over its own work and processes ete (Axel! al, 2000), ‘and team role breadth, ie. the degree to which the team can allocate ‘asks among team members without being confined by narrowly defined team roles (xl tal, 2000), could also be connected to the dynamic ‘component model's organizational component C as it relates to the ‘way people are organized, The factor participative safety (tell et al,, 2000) however, Is, already include in relation to psychological safery (Amabile and Prev 2016, pp. 168). 5.8. actors at the organizational evel that can contribute to the dynamic ‘componential model ‘McLeas (2005) stresses the necesity of open How of communication, ‘as well as freedom and autonomy. These factors are mentioned by ‘Amabile apd Pratt (2016) a organizational component skills in lnmovation management, but in the earlier paper categorized as orga- nizational component a, motivation to innovate (Amzbile, 1983). Mela» (2005) Furthermore argues that organizational encouragement such as reward and recognition, a5 well as time and money allocation and other seateity of resources is important, which are already discussed in organizational components a,b, and “Mainemelisand Ronson (2006) deserbe how time and space, suchas, Penoaion 1152022) 102473 engagement in play, can contribute to organizational creativity, e.g, by producing ideas or through improvisation to allow divergent thinking during the innovation process. Tis factor is not clearly discussed in the dynamic componential model. Time and space for creativity could be considered in the organizational component c, of as an activity in the idea generation stage, Mainemelis and Ronson (2006) also describe how organizational structure and strategy can inhibit ereativity, making it necessary to suspend ordinary convention, structural obligation, and functional pressures to facilitate creativity in organizations, These in sights are not diseussed in the componeatial dynamic mode, although they cam be related tothe point about autonomy in how to meet project goals (cf, Amebile and Pret, 2016, Table 2, pp. 169). Finally, ain emelis and Ronson (2006) dlseuss environmental threats, whieh Is already present in the dynamic componential mode! ‘eaders' emotional intelligence describes their ability to effectively, reason about emotions and use emations to aid cognitive processes and decision making and reflects the ability to understand and mange emotions and their interrelations with cognition both in self and others toenhance effective Funetioning (70 anc! George, 2003), Based on four primary dimensions of emotional intelligence, appraisal and expression, tse of emotions, knowledge of emotions, and management of emtaions, leaders’ emotional intelligence influence organizational creativity. This factor arguably playsa crucial role for both individuals and for collective ‘processes but is nat diseused inthe dynamic componeatial model. This insight could be captured by expanding ether the individual component Cor the organizational component C deeming them skis in innovation ‘management, but would require a better and more concise definition of organizational component C. ‘ell et. (2000) deseibe how team leader support can facilitate creativity. Gumusluoglu & lsey (2009) expand this discussion by studying how transformational leadership influence creativity at both the individual and organizational levels. Siedow et sl, (2009) discuss hhow actively managing dialectic tensions in a system enable organiza ‘onal creativity by helping to cope with conflicting activities, eg, t0 encompass both creative experimentation and standardization of core processes, Furthermore, to meet the demand of innovation, the systems heed to be managed in @ way that values and performs a variety of different and partially conflicting activates such as exploration and exploitation, i., organizational ambidexterity (Abernathy and Utter back, 1978; Benner and Tushnan, 2003), Amabile and Pratt (2016) discus te role of leadership through 2 lens of work environment winere ‘they highlight hove local leaders have higher influence on creating oases {or creativity or inhibiting creativity through abusive behavior, How. ever, the model lacks a fundamental conceptual discussion of leadership, ‘which is barely mentioned inthe paper, 54. Connecting the two tacks The literature of the two tracks an be connected by integrating the factors from track B into the dynamic componental model as described inthe previous seetions. For most ofthe identified factors, the cone tion can be established merely by adding the factors into the model and discussing them in relation to the existing knowledge presented by Amabile and Peat (2016), However, for some factors identified in track B, the theoretical in sights do not easily fit into the model. The organizational component seem fo be a container of the residual insights, but lacks a conceptual framework or more theoretical foundation, e.g, ffom organization theory. This means that the many useful insights are piled together, creating a black box inhibiting theoretical discussions about organiza tional structure, organizational processes, leadership, and management Bven the table overview (Amable and Pratt, 2016, pp. 168) compiles clements different as project goal, frequent feedback, open idea low, Participative decision-making, and reward systems into the same cate gory of skills in innovation management. Based on the Findings ofthis paper, the track B literature arguablyhighlights that organizational component C needs be expanded with a systematic and conceptual model. This conceptual model could be inspired by Hansen and Meller (2016) who presenta work system model ‘and an improvement system model that in a systematic way could ‘embrace and categorize all the presented insights from track B, e. ‘organizational structure, processes, and leadership. Future research also needs to expand the cheorescal and conceptual understanding of leadership, which could be inspired by the complexity leadership theory (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018), Furthermore, Andersen ct sl. (2014) highlight that managementselated factors, knowledge wilzation and networks, structure and strategy, culture and climate, and innovation diffusion needs further studies since they are lacking in the studies of organiza- ‘onal creativity. This point is further stressed by Akhavan eal. (2016) ‘who argue for the need of more studies of network, structure, and strategy inthe organizational creativity fel, 6. Implications for managing creativity in organizations The paper highlights the need for expanding the understanding the implications for managing creativity in organizations In terms of the ‘organizational structure, processes, and leadership, ete. In this section, ‘we will expand this component based on the identified literature from the bibllometse study. 6.1. Managing creativity through organizational settings and structure isinemelis and Ronson (2006) suggest that jobs should be designed with enough complexity to enable creativity, a point thats also stressed by Oldham and Cummings (1996) who show that jobs with high simplicity and routine Jobs reduce creativity, whereas encouraging ‘employees o focus simultaneously on multiple dimensions oftheir work increases organizational creativity. This means organizational structure and jobs needs tobe designed with hgh levels of autonomy, skill varie identity, significance, and feedback. This cen also be achieved by allowing employees to focus on multiple dimensions of their work (Oldkam and Cummings, 1996), Purthermore, Lis etal, (2019) show that setting role expectations for creativity such as explicitly incorpe- rating creativity in job description or clearly communicating employee's ‘outputs are an effective way to boost employee creativity. Tn terms of team composition, members need to have different backgrounds and diferent expertise (Hargadon and Secky, 2006). The ‘organizational settings need to enable rewsng knowledge in nevr siti: ations to allow teams to find new solutions to problems. This poiat is further supported by Woodman et al. (1993) who shows how group ‘composition, process and characterises and group structure are ‘considered as main drives of creativity. Furthermore, the teams need to have control over its own work and processes, etc (Axtell el, 2000), ‘as well as the ability to allocate tasks among team members without being confined by narrowly defined team roles (stelle al, 2000). In practice, organizational models chat enable more autonomy to teams ‘ean be inspired by the tradition of socio-technical design (Chevns, 1976) that has also inspired the description of Lean organization (eg. liker, 2004), or elements from the more recent and extreme holacracy Be-n- stein eal, 2016) 62. Managing creativity through organizational processes The dynamic componential model emphasizes the point from far ‘gadon and Bechlky (2006) about how momentary collective processes ‘ean generate creative solutions and reframe past experiences of the participants in ways that lead to new insights, Ths can be implemented in practice through participation where employees have influence within the team and organization, e.., regarding goal-setting, long-term plans, work processes, ete. (Axtell al, 2000). Furthermore, these collective processes can be facilitated through staging of play, e.g, a5 Penoaion 1152022) 102473 described by Mainemelis and Ronson (2006) of how time and space, such as engagement in play, can contribute to organizational creativity, 8 by producing ideas or through improvisation to allow divergent ‘thinking during the innovation process. 'A.way of continuously improving the organiaational settings, struc: ture, and processes for innovation s the establishment ofa second order improvement system ("Hansen and Moller, 2016), which enables sys tematic second order dynamic capabilities for improving the ability of the organization for organizational creativity and thereby innovation management and innovative outcomes, By ensuring the right improve- ment strategy i in place, organizations ean prioritize how to contin ously improve their improvement capability, also by actively selecting the right innovation tools and approaches, for example appreciative inquiry or problem solving (Hansen, 2015), The organizational innovation processes can be supported by are ‘dea management systems (Sandstrom and Bjork, 2010), which can be [T-based or be simple and visual, used directly where the job is being dane. Innovation handbooks that provide guidance on how to system atically follow the innovation processes canals be institutionalize, for example based on the dynamic componential model (Amabile and Pratt, 2016) other (2010) and Scott eal (2004) provide detaled deseriptions of how organizational processes of systematic traning systems for creative ‘problem solving can be caried out, even at the shop oor to improve innovative outcomes. Hansen and Meller (2016) further add how this systematic understanding of creative thinking requires the right orga nlzational support systems to function optimally 6.3. Managing creative through leadership Oldham and Cummings (1996) deseribe how leadership behavior needs :o be supportive and non-controlling to support creativity. This finding is supported by Axle! et al (2000), who deseribe how team leader support can facilitate creativity. Zhow and George (2002) expand this by introducing leaders’ emotional intelligence and how it aids the creative processes. In practice, this means that leadership needs to actively manage the work climate, culture and environment to enable employees to submit new ideas ina safe and encouraging environment. [Edmundson (1999) describes in more detalls how psychological safety influences a teams innovative outcomes and how to increase paycho- logleal safety. Another well-known leadership approach to utilize Is transformational leadership, which Gumusluogle & Ilse (2009) discuss by studying how transformational leadership influence ereaivty at both the individual and organizational levels. Sledow et al. (2009) diseuss how actively managing dialectic ten sions in a system enable organizational creativity by helping to cope with conflicting activities, eg, to encompass both ereative experimen. tation and standardization of core processes. Uhl-Sien and Arena (2018) lntcoduce the notion of adaptive space, which gives a conceptual un. derstanding of the leadership processes necessary to cope with the tension of complexity and conflicting interests ina system. One way of actively managing complexity and these tensions isthe use of guiding language or metaphors that can help teams find new innovative sol tions and overcome the conflicting processes that complex challenges can induce (Hansen and Lilja, 2021). Probs et al. (2011) present ‘ments from ambidextrous leadership that ean also inform leaders about ‘how to cope withthe conflicting challenges of simultaneously exploiting and exploring 7. Conclusion The paper analyzed the organizational eveatvity literature through & bibliometric review fram 1980 to 2020, The analysis shows that the extant literature of organizational ereativity in 2000 diverged into two tracks that consist of influential conceptual models of organizational creativity, which have not been integrated in the literature. The paperMA, Fa et contributes to this literature gap by connecting the two tracks through analyzing factors from one track that were then integrated into the other track. Furthermore, the paper suggests implication for practitioners based on the learnings from analyzing the two track, ‘The bibliometric analysis has the limitation that the data was only based on Web of Science, while afew studies had to be added manually from other detabases, meaning the TLCS could be influenced with a larger data source. Als, the conceptual analysis only included the 20, ‘most cited articles. We acknowledge that an expansion might potentially highlight interconnections between the two tracks, not uncovered by ‘ove analysis “The findings of the paper encourage future research to expand the ‘theoretical discussion of organizational component C in the éynamic ‘componential model, Furthermore, a theoretical and conceptual un- derstanding of leadership needs to be developed and studied in order to “uncover the role for organizational creativity. Funding ‘This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies inthe public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Declaration of competing interest None. References Abernay,W),Uterack, JM, 1978, Patera of duet novton, Tana Re 100), sr [Nenva, Pb, Wy ee, MA, ens, A 2916 Malo tends a Inovige managenent rear « bbonetie uy. Sdenomettes 107 D, Avan Penn, oui, Mab 206, Scale, Knowledge sharing and Inrovaon ape an mpi of AD amr in ion. Tcnl Ana Sa Mina 28), 96113 Ande, TC, 1988 A ode of eey and anvatin In oxanzaos es. Oras Bey. 10 (1), 12-167 i FA, 197. Mottin cratety negations on ig what you lve ad Tevng what you dC Maroy, Rev. 40 (1 2-58 “Anse 198. Haw to Kil entity, 7 aretd Buses Schoo! PONE, ‘eT ras M206, Te ya cope ode of ey a -Andropolos, 2001. Determinants of Organisational Creativity: a Literaure Review Manager elon, Andere, N, Pott, K, ow J, 2014. nga nd een aration 8 ‘tthe pcm Famer ‘vel, Ct, Hedman ul, Uniwor, Ki, Wall, Water, PA, Maran, “ao, Shoptor Insvatn fing te spgstion ad impleenation a es, 3 Oeip rg. Pel 73 (3), 255-285 or, 2012 ating atta won he implemen of rete ease ‘epureatonsAené Manag. 85 (5, 102-1119 ear Tha, Mt 200% fxploten, expr, an proce management he pct dima reves Aad Mana, Re. 28 (2), 236-236 ‘ens, Bure, J, Cannes, N, Le My 2016 Beye ebay hype: Haw Bus Re. 94, 8 ‘ldo Re Fre, M,Andemon, Frc, MF, J, 208. dei epee on Inrovton:snfening demands, mull patiys and smdeterty. not ryan spot 28), 305387 rad, eno, 200 Mang innovation hppen a ognize: nal ‘revi mecca, orginal cary mehasane or ba? rd Innova Mang A ateonionel Paha of Prades Dorp Mata. Asos. 17 over ire, Che, C, Raya, KY, 2008, Visaiing Saomlae domo, Aan. Re. In Teco. 97 9-388, ‘cern, 1978 Te rns scenic design um, Rl. 29 (8, 79-792 dy of Catv, Prange einoaton 115 2022) 102473 Davin Ry Gyn, MA, Kaa, RK, 1999, Mure tering aout est in ‘ettieaton » setsemaing perspective. Ad. Manu Re. 24 (2), 206-307. Des Mid 2018 ngovt instars ought he ovation oc 28 ‘eerie ert arly Technoation 80, 3-2. ‘ioundon, 1998 Poyeoriopeasy oneng Behavior in work ems. A 1048, 35088. ut 199% ons CB, 1996, theory oad cresive acon nlp cl dn, Acad ‘Monae. 21 (8), 112-1152. ‘aspen, 2008, Compete with ret Ey Peete at he Insoaton ecare "meee ith envio be Date ity of Eonamie Asi \ovgh #1979. Arete esa sale forthe nace cho US 3 es. Sox yeh 37), 1396 coma the A 2 Tandematn ee. cea. iol onan. us Ra 2 (0, 461-973 Hansen D201 What's your Bet Move: Qa Prog 6, 122. Hansen. Mal, 201, Canepteng dam apes in ean production: wot oe they a how do they Cv Mans, J. 28), 194-208 ‘Manse, Dy i 3, 2021 Leg sit management asforasion in complexy "heh dante pace nd metaphor Dshinard Pak SM Dbl (Gi Kay Challenges and Opportunies for Quay, Sti am incvation tate tot nde Revolion Geaty and Senice Management he Fort Indu Revoiton pp 2-250 ‘Hargadon, AB Beeb, 38, 2006, Wher calles of eeaves become eetve elle el ay pron sling at werk Oran Se 17), 496500 arsagton De, 199. The eclogy f hima crest pyc! penpetve Ins darod ons Collogsism; Toward a rycoloy a Crsve Enonments an oli Pespecvepesned the tse Peronalty Assan and Reseach Safe Pablo, te. Unive of Calor, Berkley, Sep 1984 ‘ay, 5, 2014 Cee sues: explring the poco tractor soup Trey. Acad. Manager 39 2403. Jane, MA, 2007. Ao pte on the colary noma on rehence, verity, ‘td aca thi be man densa of bal enconneatal cane. Ba See 12 2 Jone, MA, Shoot BLL, Re, VE, Borer X, 2005, Saal etn on sence, "alnerlity ad spain ibn he hn erin fal ernment ‘hangs Cla wien Came 1 3, 240-252. yk By Van Den Ede, , 2007 The organ i of are: tering Teor, cell abd deslow-aaking perspec J. Masa. Std #4 (0), Prytblopa pospecive. J Manse. Dv luk Jt, 2004 The Tats Wap 14 Managemen Pris ar the Wood ‘Gromest Mantes Mere, New Yo ‘uu, vend, sen, 0, 2079 To Be (reat, Mott Be este? A seinemingferpetv to eee ve expecta | Ba sy 1-15 Maine C- Henson. 5, 200 es ste Bom in els ny omar ear | play an cei in organational stings Rex Oran Bek. 2, 81-133 ahisn, Gi, Hearn 8, 2008 ree of nrmensnsesng create and Tnpoveve eeoens wid egasetns. Creat Res. .26(1), 1-140 eve othe erature nd noe or human route devel A. Develop. Mam. soar 7 (2 206-246. ‘vena, GR Canine, A, 1996. pajecrevs: pon an conte cts ewes ead Bag. 5.39 3), 7-638 Pas og 1G 200, en ei rp ba cy a ‘aitoopin, Miryam Aitran Rey, Abas, More, 202. Stele alin fo Teen in soppy chan a blomete anal: Susana. nip Ramis CA. 201. Orgran support or employes encouraging ete ese ‘ceveunvetl rast. Cal Manage. 45 (3, 8-105 Sam, Bok Jy. liea manogenct seme a changing onoation Tansee fr. Po Des 1) 310-328. ‘Seo, Let, Meso, MD, 2008 The elactieness feet aang «| untae revere. He 16 (4) 361-388. ‘racism es whe shoul weg a hot J. Mang 20 (0, ‘tie, Ace, BL, 2018. eae for oguatnaladataity:« tere ‘than naive rameors Lede Q 29) 85-104 Weih K,Stelile EM, Obl, 2008 OrgniaingFor igh eb: reas tf ealcte minds Ce May 9 Bi Woodman RM, Saye J, Gin, A, 1988 Toward 2 thes organizational tye, Aead. Mag fey 18 2) 238-32. onde RN, 2008 Cetvy and argesatinal change inking Hens ed ‘ening thoy and Orpen. Creasy 283-00 20m, George J, 2002, Awakening employee crete tere fader ‘onoonsliligene, lender 74 (3), 94-368