Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Amabile y Mueller - Studing Creativity, Its Processes and The Antecedents

    Transféré par

    Marta
    188 vues17 pages
    Amabile, T. M. y Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying Creativity, Its Processes, and Its Antecedents: An Exploration of the Componential Theory of Creativity. En J. Zhou y C. E. Shalley, (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 33-64). New York: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

    Titre original

    Amabile y Mueller - Studing Creativity, Its Processes and the Antecedents

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Amabile, T. M. y Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying Creativity, Its Processes, and Its Antecedents: An Exploration of the Componential Theory of Creativity. En J. Zhou y C. E. Shalley, (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 33-64). New York: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    188 vues17 pages

    Amabile y Mueller - Studing Creativity, Its Processes and The Antecedents

    Transféré par

    Marta
    Amabile, T. M. y Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying Creativity, Its Processes, and Its Antecedents: An Exploration of the Componential Theory of Creativity. En J. Zhou y C. E. Shalley, (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 33-64). New York: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 17
    CHAPTER 2 ‘Studying Creativity, ts Processes, ‘and Its Antecedents ‘An Exploration of the Componential Theory of Creativity Teresa M, Amabile Harr Ue Jenner. Muster Unsere of ernayaia iwrRopueTiOn ‘We kaow what we know about creativity through research. To the extent that ne undermand the ski personality styles, motivations, fd condiae that are conducive or detrimental ro creativity, or the [rocesestvough which emerges, we ave creativity researches to honk, Yt tis eld of inquiry has nor caiionally enjoyed the most Sella: eputtion Inthe preface to his 1968 clase, Crotty and Po. onal Freedom, the pychologet, Frank Barton described the vilification of ereativity reeasch bythe poet and social criti, Kenneth Rexsot, Rexroth, wo had ben subject in ane of Barton's ealy suds of xe~ ‘tive writers roe an arte clled "The Viviezion ofa Poet” for The [Nation According to Barron, Rexzoth portrayed psychological research ‘on eeatiiy as not only useless bu actually dangerous, Because chad ‘the power to potentially destoy che delicate phenomenon by excessive stody and wrong headed conclsions. ‘Ceatvisy research har enjoyed only a sighly beer reputation among the troader group of prychology scholars, management hols, and busines leaders. Many who are unfamilie with reent advances in the field asrome that thas lice broad relevance because ic focuses ‘only onthe at (and perhaps the sciences), has itl validity because Cretvty ito ill defined, ephemeral, and "sof" 10 study rigorouly, fad provides lie practical applcsbilty because creativity cannot be Induced, Bot they are wrong Tn recent years, 2 nusber of istrate scholars in peycology and in| management have devised ingenious methods for staying ceativity in ‘broad range of domains, incnding organizational behavioe. Moreover, they have cleasly demonstrated systematic influences on eressviny— fom of which ae amenable ro change within organizations. Certainly, the study of creativity presents enormous challenges. Ii dificult ro [sss and gents complet case ate ficult discover excepe in extemely wellcootolled psychology experiments where only one variable is manipalated and where all subjects complete the same task in single laboratory session. In organizational stings, where well ‘ontolledexpesiments are either infeasible or highly arial the chal lenges are much greater, Not only can ereasritybeinfuenced by 2 broad scsy of contextual factors at makiple level rom individual sills to team dynamics to organizational climate), but participants are working ‘ove long periods of me on ery diferent projects whove outcomes vary ‘ona numberof dimensions. Given the compleiy of ereativity very lie ‘search has examined this phenomenon inthe conte of real organiza tions. Along with otber scholars, we aze curently trying tll hat oid by boiling on the assessment tools and reseach methodologies of pr ‘Hous experimental and nonexperimentalreseasch. This undertaking, in iol, requires considerable creaiviry. ths chaps ve wil decribe the component honey of crate lay (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 196), whichis a comprehensive theory that Jnclades a description ofthe eestive peoces ab well at specifation of inflaences on cteativiry within and outside the indvidwal. We wll then illuseate various approaches to meeting the challenges of organizational Creativity research by describing methods that addsess each aspect of ‘the theory To facltate the adoption of potesaly powerful new meth ‘ods by organizational searchers, we will describe methods from boc {he organizational and the psychological erature. We will discus the tssesment of cea, antecedent, and its proceses, aswel asthe Inajr research designs for rudying resi. We hope tha ths chapter ‘ill be urefl for scholats planning research on organizational reatvty ld for anyone eying to evaluate such rerearch and conclsins ‘THE COMPONENTIAL THEORY OF CREATIVITY In keeping with most scholars who study the phenomenon, we define teat 16 process rekng in a product isthe production of a novel and appropiate response, produc, or solution to an open-ended task. The esponse must bene, but must also be appropriate ro the task to becompleed or the problem oe solved. In addition, the cask Imust be open ended, rather than having a single, obvious slstion. The ‘componenal theory of cratviey (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996), a the- ‘oxy designd to be comprehensively useful for both psychological and ‘organisational creativiy research, describes the creative proces and the ‘atious indoeaces onthe proces and its outcomes. Is basic elements, 2nd the cstv proctes tdscribes, are similar in the aggregate to ter theories of eesti in both peychology (Simonton, 1995 Seerabers Lnbart, 1990; Walls, 1926) and organizational studies (Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griff, 1993, although with diferent emphases and somevba different propoted mechani Tn the componenial theory, the nluences on creativity include three components ‘within the indvidal problem-slve:—domainelevant sil, cretvey-elevane processes, and incinsic task motivation— fad one component outuide the individaal—the work exvzonment Figure 2.1 presens a simplified depiction ofthe updated theory (Ama- ‘ie, 1996) Domain relevant skills ocade knowiedge, experts, tech ‘idl skill ftlgence, and talent in che particular domain where the problem ssveris working—such s microbiology or marketing, Creativ- fyrelevace processes (originally ealed cestivityslevae sil include 2 cogetie style and personality characteristics tht are conducive to independence, sktking, and taking new perspectives on problems, as swear a dsplned woek styles hills yea eas Josie "ask motination rhe modeatio to undertake a task of sole a problem because tis itererting, involving, personally challenging, oF satis ing—rater chan undertaking it ou of the extrinsic motivation arising from contracted for rewards, surveillance, competion, eraluation, ot requirements todo something in = certain way. Research evidence sup ports the nlasion ofeach af these component inthe model cee Ams File, 1996. “The erie component i the work environment or, move geaealy the socal environment, This inclades al ofthe exrinsc motivtors (och fs expect external evaluation hat have been showa to undermine Incrinsic motivation, aswell ara numberof other factors inte eviron- sent thacan serve a obtcles or ar simulans avinsic motivation 2. Sept depton af ene Ber of eas. ny minke ae dic tm teh rs Cone. 52 by tb, 96, Gln eon Ps and reatvity, Research in organizational settings has revealed a num= ber of work vironment fcrors that can Block creativity such a8 an ‘emphasis onthe status quo, a conservative, low-risk actu among top fnanagement, norms of harshly ering ew ideas, plitcal problems twin the onganizaton, and excessive time presure (eg, Amabile, ‘Gori, Gooa, Lazenby, & Heszon, 1996; Kanter, 1988). Ocher factors can stimulate cestivity, such at freedom in carrying out the work; & Senst of postive challenge in she works work teams that ae collabors- tive, veel shld ad ea focused; supervisors who encourage che evclopment of new ideas; top anagement that supports innovation ‘threugh «clearly articulated ceativy-enoaragingwsion and through tppopriate recognition for creative works mechanisms for developing few ideas; ad norms of actively sharing ideas across the organization (ec, Amabile al, 1996; Kanter, 1988; West 8 Anderson, 1996). “The theory species that all components are necessary for creat ity and that enealy, the higher the level ofeach of the components, the higher the ultimate level of creativity. In other words ceativsy reauites a confluence ofall component; creativity should be highest ‘nea intrinsically motivated person wich high domain expertise and Fh kiln creative thinking works in an environment high in supports for creativity. Ae depicted in Figure 2.1, all four of chest components shoal falta the eeative proces. The creative proces i xen, ‘eave cognitive processing of problems and tasks—cha all ofthe ‘omnitve processes that coatibae tothe production of creative works. (esi cognitive processing consists of several subprocesses: analyzing fane articulating the exact natre of the problem tobe solved, repar~ {ng o solve the problem by gathering information and improving any repied shill, generating eas fr solving che problem, resting o vl ‘ean the chosen solution, snd communicating that solution to others “Although hese processes may often follow this sequence, they can occur in any sequence spd wil often recur eratvely uc a ceative outcome bas been atined Sor example, an employee might stat by considering pasiclae coviomer need (problem idenication) and immediatly come wp with Sn iden (response generation) fellowed by reading and ralking with leagues about exiting workin the area (preparation, She might chen ‘reentthe idea to top management (communication). If top mansge- Fen accepts the new wea at something potentially avel and useful the Employee might thea be asked co test he ie (validation). The testing ‘process could involve a sere of teas, fllowed each ime by refinement ofthe original idea and, perhaps, ditional preparation through infor tation gathering or even reformulation of the original problem identS- ‘ation. Onc ial validated ideas accepted as novel and appropriate, then a creative outcome has been generated. However, ifthe iden i "ejected, the employee must continue the proces of reining the problem Aefnision, preparing, generating, tetng, snd communicating eas ‘or terminate the process. Ulimately, higher levels ofeach ofthe four components should lead to more eflectve creative cognitive prosesing, ‘which, i arn, shoal lad fo more creative outvomes, Those outcomes Oi eontmpory ses oh ne or eof se ‘Reblog sted i Tac, cag fsieacy counts of es Poser a modicao of method doled by Glo! 1967] and ‘ference 1966 1 sn veya proces att theo ome pen dni, cous cay. Mow cre ‘Spas done nanan stingy tc crea athe group crindul le sibonghone ave canine he company fa reel egy Tyo eee, 2006) edge tg acetyl ake on of wo fomsin conten pomnhorgunronl terse sags Ong by al Hrcrprt ning tr coneaul neenenechige (CAT (Amable {sez Relans on cope saan dvs a decade ong ion iStheongutetorl cata ofwingewh natmen btn gia hate ean fan employe’ pert. More recent rch ‘stove appied ths spose semen feat eg, Olam E Camains, 1996, Often, ngs se mae ya snl rte copoyrs dec perio, "Te CAT, ugly droped fox pclae of ey, ss nw wily ed in xgantional icie we The CAT in inet eperrin bed apron in lance on exe bec ‘ins ies of cna song wane {he bac plsophy behind te concoalsenment ekg re lhogh crea) car ep dei sa er ae tear sherry oot dan ene whose aml wh Sensi eon ery when yee np gnc relates the el esr in ge set Frcucs ieee, wf seve scsmet what pel [Ej onthe ve wed~aoogh alas earigrous manne "The CAs based on arly espn ey exit cot coma fm te owes aren race” ll the highest fens sco, hat poole sean wih» domaa Spel can kernel get sox the rate cent of ‘lee woos in ht domaly th, ae comennal essa! By ‘Slip pre falar wih te domain ele fo act by solemnly t osc firth pe Mosport fon? on es; nfs, that having nds make compari tings of 4 nukes af works onions ptr hving tama ly Sage works or india tacos clon along the cesy eavncm, The CAT ines having jos who re foarte does in which the work was done (eer exper supervises, ee) make sealerated cay ssa of sel pac of odie of werk done yf inviolate the ada aed one she on subjective defense Cri in te domainy ad rt the prt late oan tate tterthe eine ome abe sada) ely nade tesa laity ofthe CAT meas sent ae obtained rom sees weting independent al ‘hor fave aes othe ame inforiation aout the roduc of Dod foo the judge song ae aan cepa vel ten cme su asrnment ar be exes che me of he age on 5 the mesos of ereveity for ech roduc, Aliough gle ee ‘aig efor of superior tings, have ben shown to cote Sn with some obetne ments sch nents doe (Scot & Bac, 1994 Temey, Fumes Se Gray 1999) web at ite peerabl fo ws male expert esi taal wo prove te seliabiliy of the assessments, " Des isidependnorgaiainalandpoycslopeazeeatch on rent the CAT aston imation, May ofthese esha other tecige ying on sat sonnet acon ‘nglsaperrio ings fins Fy ke cet ues it thevealword the ala of ny rtectiessernent cng sce Sobel ofc ay domain, Thi 2 since, ad th amit ele wh ores of pte ‘rea hema soon oped hy coemporeymembees o eRa only ae be elcid at gn el ei We nas ta ‘etod nlding te CAT, con pone aceart meanse seston theres Th reson shy hogh sd of ey oy be lng 2 cotinoum fom lowe lev here ae done age fens inthe disbon between mre cudinry ect sed these Shes ef gen tendering comparison afl, Ocul ely xan wrk eet a sew domain, by eambining two ote oo cxay aeons ie of tooph’ Ths, here tin oo or exerts {the ine tha the work fe produ. Acette sues fe tte soy ad ala of he wok of eta ong png of ine ‘cone voltion ofthe leva ds unt enough peopl gis the necessary expertise to make aearae judgments. Moreover, because they ate socaly based, consensus judgments even a lower levels of “eatvgy ave aubject ro socal bise—te political snd personal forces that can ead observers to shade thes adgzneats positively or negatively. “Thus, objective asessment techniques are most usefl athe more com- mon levels of eretvity mos often seen in organizations and elsewhere ‘Moreover, when assessments are made by judges who know the people ‘who produced the wor the potential for bias aways exist. Therefor, ‘these assessments must be interpreted cautiously, Nonetheless, Because ‘hetraeaovlty and value of wok ultimate depend on social adsment, ‘we believe tht observer assessments of creativity are an indispensable pase ofthe researcher’ repertoire. Tei ineresing t0 note that, although subjective ratings by external jndges are ured extensively in boch psychological and exgaizationl ‘reativtyreearh,selfratingy are vewally absent fom che emis leerature, The common wisdom among creativity researcher shat set ratings ar suspect because they ar likely subject several forms of bias “Moceowes, appropriate conentoal atesrinen requires judges to at the products or bodies of work of several people relative ro one another, Seératngs may lack this comparison base. In aditon the ratings of several external judges are geecali used in creativry studies in order to obtain more sable estimates. Obviously, each selsated product would berated by usta singe adge- Despite these causes of concern however, ‘would be usefl for forure research a inverigate the way of ela lng, because individuals do have acer 9 snformation about certain aspects of ther own work that no one els has. For example, researchers ould atempe wo obtain comparative selfsatingsin order to examine pos (She wore nf ine then tings andra devermine she enrespondence Tecween self ratings and rxngs by external judges. [A etaranalsis in ‘the organizational Iteratore hs revealed an overall crelation of about (0.30 berwoen elt rstingrandratings by others on variety ofdneasions noe focused on ceaiiy (Harris Schaubroee, 1988) Some cheovss have proposed chat cestiiy assessment i nt jst 2 way of ieniing when ceaviry bas happened bo rahe is» crcl tlement ofthe overall process by which cestnty happens. For example, (Clkszenemsaly (1999) argues thatthe assessment pesons products cor body of work i a part ofa "creativity system." The system includes ‘he individual who produces nove sponses, the domain (or organized body of knowledge) tha transmis information wo che individual eying to work in that arena andthe Bld the expects or exekeepers inthe Alma) who jadge whether the individuals work is worthy of inch sion ia the domain In this systems perspective, eeatiity does ot exist ‘without chis acceptance by th Sld. This view pes prominence tothe ‘validation stage ofthe creative process (fe Figure 21), highlighting the importance of eyeing back trough communication wand validation by ‘exteraal sources following individual validation af one's own idea. Clery, whether they see a8 an integral pact ofthe creative pro- ‘xs cr not, contemporary organizational researchers view the asses- ‘ment of oatcomes-work products and bodies of work by external judges as essential wo the empirical study of organizational ceativcy. ‘Weapree wholeheartely ‘METoDS FOR STUDYING CREATIVITY Inthe previous section we surveyed way in which researchers can atest ‘each of he ements of restvty the necesarycomponeats within and outsicethe individual, creative cognitive processing, and the outcomes ‘hat sult from tht procesing. Three «variety of methodologies for srudvag just how these components snd processes reel in cesiv out comes In otes words, there are a variety of ways in which these basic ssesmnent tools an be combined for investigating what cause retn- lity, what relates ro it, andthe mechanisms by which is occurs. In tis section, we wil give a brief overview of some of che major methodolo- es in creatvey research, with lustatons from our own and other? "eszach (For good overviews of some methods for studying creativity, ‘lso sec the chapters inthe "Methods for Studying Creativity” section of the Handbook of Creat (Steraber, 1999) Table2.2oulines some ofthe msjor methods in psychological and orgs- sisaal srodier of eremtvity along with example fom the lerarare and notes on some ofthe prominea sengths and deawhacks of each mmethed. The methods atthe beginning ofthe table fford research: tre grater levee of contol over observations, while those toward the tnd of the cable afford greater ecologialvalidiny—that i closeness to the actual phenomenos asi uafols in an individual's ie o in =n organization. We hve tied oak i clea, fom the examples tht we have chosen, ha each ofthe major categories of methods has been sed in both pojchologial and organizational sade. In chaactesaing the methods in Table 2.2, we focused on the major smethedelogical questions that any onpanizasonalreecarcher should ‘ie 22 Seog eas Cares Pssst ey MemaDs soem EXAMPLES most user For east erro Stormer wonteruntinoe | bt a0 * Satine depmeteutcatay oss aronnoontir, Gnome 20 70) + Sitemeter amon ‘arnt scan Hs het eras ‘owt os ree Pe qe 269 07) ‘Senco oct ‘stn ye Ste P0570 ‘mse erty Ssieascsaenssormasca” "| Maite 0) + Ripe cence 1 Sc ss 97) + stopgap notin one get comin tae + ae ve, ny + Dang mnt ben + Osea oe fSemeanaecemees stm ist op apace ue ype says ny ‘Semcon omee + Fou Gu SD () a! ‘tector {etorinstnag ocr” aw Sam 8060) + Wemstaicamtecees nese) settee —— = aeae citer Se Sa Laon ent, {age rent eps ha mista ti ening SSetincnc nay ‘ire ag a ae ‘Ee cnet te fern 208 ‘nt + eee cee cs Evers fee 8G, 109) Sig fr Sx es 3 ‘rae 8 0) Fee oe wey * mote serene cna Sea erry omar Sec ce crete Nema eaetngeoste goer ga eatrberseenonbay * miecetterone iativatncemige |” ema yarn ‘Smnamsnyancoer cts ae ts p+ Smo nan + Seine Satna + Strona at tne ery + Sean ran + agent 2 Stee em - Ese emo . ce ae tos i : consider: Will che method make it posible to determine causal inf {ences on creativity? Can hypotheses about relaonsips berweencesiy- lny and other constructs be tested? Might imteresting new hypotheses bout causes and relationships be generated? Will the method be likely ‘o provide insight inc how the ceaive proces operate? Wilt allow 2 limps inc che complexities of organizational erestivys that i, wil it fave good ecological validiy? Wil allow the rereatche 0 generalize results othe individuals, groupe, or organizations? ‘But there ate many acer iasues to be considered in choosing x meth ‘odology o study creativity. One important issue concerns the research- c's aily to understand the prcepcions and thought of individual, involved in creative work. Here, no simple ordering of the methods in ‘able 2.2s posible. Interestingly, experiments can often be quit sefl aa means for assessing people’ thoughts and perceptions in cel time 25 they ate doing (or have jst Snised) a ceatiity task. Case sadn may also be quite effecive in geting at peycologicl tates, but only ‘if hey incde inervews along with observations andioearhival data collection. Another important sae conerne the pony for bis in ‘the data. Researcher bia, the tendency for the ess 0 beinfoenced by ‘the researcher's expectations or mere presence, ikely below inwel- controlled experiments in well onstracted surveys, andin achiral data sources (which canbe used for sngle-time corelatonal suis, logit inal correlational srudies,o case sedis), Respondent or bjt) bias, the tendency forthe result o be influenced by wha respondents think expected or by how they wish o appear to the researches likely tobe lovin well contoled experiments and aschival datasources; howeves itmay bea problem in surveys. Both forms of bia an be aerious prob lem i observational and interview methods, which are moet common Incase sadn, (Clearly, each methodology has its stengths and its drawbacks, fre: ing researchers to make wadeots, Generally these tsdeolfcan be made by considering the nature of the research quetion(s} the tnethods that ‘others have used eo addes those guestons (suggesting gaps that might ‘efile, che methodological strengths ofthe searcher (end the deste ‘expand those strengths) she avalailiy of research partipante aad aca of various kinds, an the desired publication outlet or acne for ‘he research. Ukimatey, our understanding of creativity will be best Sezved by a amber of careful everchers addressing important gue ‘on using a variety of methods—and by good theory building ad the- ‘ony testing char atemprs ro integrate and make ene ofthe ndings ‘We will illusteate the major type of methods for studying creat ity by describing suds televaat toa seemingly simple question: What {flex if eny, does evaluation have on ses? Most ofthe stds that we wil deserbe come from our wn program of research (carried out ‘rth many cllaborarors over the past 30 years). Because we have nat {sed cave studite aa ceearch rool, that example comes from another pai of reeatchers, Note that only ehe fst example, the experiment, ‘wae designed solely to examine evaluation and retry. ‘Example 4 An Experiment ‘Thelabocstory experiment examining the effets of expected evaluation on cestivity(Amail, 1979) used college stodents as subjects. In ind- ‘vidual sessions, each subject was given am identical set of ac materials dashed eo ue thote material © make a paper collage. Some ofthe bibs were eandomly assigned to evalation expectation conditions, whe they were told that expert ars would be making a detailed ‘ralsation oftheir callages, “noi the good pnts and crtcizing the Iweakneses” Tey wee also tld, "And sine we know that our subjects be atereted in how they ae evaluated, we wil send rou copy of ach Judges evaluation of your design in about ewo weeks." Other subjects ‘we: astgned ro nonevslation conditions, where they were told that the focus ofthe sadly was norte collage itself bur the effec ofthe collage= making ssivity om thet subsequent mood this was done so negate any fsscmptions they might have made aboot their collages being evaluated ‘Aer te srady was completed, che consensual assessment technique was ‘wed to provide outcome daa. Expert jodges independently cated the reciviy ofthe collages, withour knowing the experimental condition fr Hea ofthe subject who made the collages. The ress cleatiy honed «negative eet of expected evaluation on creative, with gen- ‘ral parallel effects on subjects? intsinsc motivation. (The only excep- ‘ior wa special evaluation condion where sbjees were told exactly fvhn to do ia ther collages fo get a good evaluation from the judges Hloweves, because shese subjects were essentially given an algorithm for making» “ereaiv collage” their task was no longer truly open~ ended one ofthe requirements ofthe basic defini of tue creativity) ‘Aluough the exvental nding of «negative effect of expected evaluation fon teatvty hasbeen replicated hy other researchers e, Hennesey, 41983), some studies have found tha certain types of evaluation can, acer cerain conditions, spport creativity (eg. Shall, 1995; Salley ec eery Smith, 2001. Example 2: SingleTime Coreationa Study Although the esas ofthe evaluation experiment were clea, they cannot beused eo predict the extent co which expected evaluation mig affect reasvgy in orpanizatons. Ie therein fat, 4 measurable clationship Derwen expected evaluation and ccaivity in organizations? If, ie indeed a negative selationship? Or, might say connection between the experimental results and organizational work be negated by the bviout Aifecences between real organizational behavior and aborstory expe linear on college students doing an exsetally meaningless task fr a ‘unkown experiments? To examine the effects of expected evaluation, aswell t many other aspects ofthe work environment, we conducted 2 ‘ingletime correlational ery in lage high-technology organization (Amabile et al, 1996). The primary data collection instrument was the KEYS questionnaire (Amabile, 1995, which arese employe persep- tons of several diferene aspects ofthe work envionment sll 8¢ ‘overall ceatiiy ia che work. We asked middle level R&D masages inthe company to nominate the mort reste and lst ceive peo ‘ects with which they had been associated over the previous sree year ‘We then asked them ro complete KEYS rice, oace describing the work cnvironment of the most creative project and once desribing the work vironment ofthe least create project. The creativity nominations ‘were later aidated by higher-level manager inthe compan, who were ‘unaware of which projects had revioniy been nominated as high ot low in creativity for our study. The work environment descriptions on KEYS were also validated by asking other people on the most cretve and lene ereative projec oll out KEYS just once to describe the work ‘vironment surrounding their projets. These project tem members did nor know chat chee seoiecs had been denied ar parcealaey high ‘ot ow on crestiviy ‘We found thatthe high-reatvty projets scored sgniicannly higher han the low-remvty projects on several KEYS sles, Of particular seteeat here she Organizational Encoarageme cle, which iacudes several items concerning evaluation: “Performance etluation in this foxpanization is fie" “Ideas are judged faily in ais organisations” “Failure is acceptable inthis organization, if the efor onthe project vas good" and "People inthis organization can express unosial dees thou the fear of being called stupid." In addition, che lowerestviny projects scored significantly higher than the high-ereatiity projects om ‘the Organizational Inpediments KEYS sale, Tht scale also iacded items on evaluation: “People are quite concerned about negative eticism of ths work this organization” "People ae too critical of ew ideas in this organization" and "Destructive cxtcism i «problem ia this organization.” Alehough, obviously, the form and meaning of evalaae tom in his cortlational study were quite different from the frm and ‘meaning ofthe evaluation manipulation in the experiment, te overall result seems tobe the same: Expecting cial evaluation from external Sources is asroiaed with ower ceaiviy. ‘Example 3: A Longitudinal Comeationl Study ‘Once we new that evaluation did indeed seem to play cle increativity ina eal organiaation, we vet owt to discover someting about the mech nisms by which the evaluative envionment in an organization might change overtime and whether there would be commensurate changes In cenit. A dramatic change ia a high-technology organization we ‘had sttied ear allowed uso begin this discovery process with loa- tron correlasonal study (Amabile &¢ Conti, 1999) As part ofthat tari roy, we had done abroad KEYS assesment ofthe cusrent work faviroament across the frm. Several monthe after we had completed that data cllcion, the organization announced 3 major downsizing of the workforce. It seemed likely that such a majoe organizational event ‘nigh ad to shifts inthe work eaviconmentinclding the evaluative ‘envionment—and as consequence, shifts in creasvty sl. ‘We rentered the organization and administered KEYS at chee Addioral point in tine; we also conducted interviews with «subse, of the people who completed the KEYS questionnaire. We discovered that, ie several other aspects ofthe wotk envionment, Organizational Encouragement destined signicently dung the dowasisng (relative to the predownszing bascline). Although i ecovsed sonst wl, the downsicing ended, s was stl marginally lower than baseline eves five months after the end ofthe downsizing. Moreorer, Organizational lepedinents increased significantly during the downsizing; by ehe time ‘he downsizing ended, however, they bad returned to baseline. Our sta tistical analyses reveaied tha the impact of downsizing on declines ia petcened ceeaivty was completely medited bythe changes in the work ‘vironment, acluding the evalutive envionment ab asesed by tems ‘onthe KEYS instrument. Tans, although this study's design didnot alow for definitive conelusions abou causal, allowed ust move one sep beyondthesngle-ime correlational study. Here, the longtadinal design allowed us to glimpse posible causes of changes in organizational cte- tivity eer time, including changes inthe evaluative environment Example 4: A Cas Study ‘We, curseies, have not done case stady research designed to examine valuation processes ia orpuniatons and their posible lationship co eatvity. The closest cae stay that we have found wt published by Sutton and Hargadon (1996), These researchers did an ethnographic study of brainstorming sessions in a major and highly suecesfl indo tal design firm (IDEO), closely observing a large number of sch ses sions ore afi long period of ime. This study relevant to questions shout evaluation in abroad sese, because one ofthe cic characteris ‘es of brainstorming is che guideline wo suspend jdgment dung idea {rnerton, avoiding al evaluation of ideas unt ltes (Osbora, 1957). ‘he seu is elevane 1 quetions about crests in abroad sense 36 well the mociating esearch question wie, “How does IDEO innovate routinely?" The study, which did aot examine a specie connection between evaluation and ceaiiy id reveal that brainstorming served ‘umber of useful organizational functions, We believe hi, in ges ‘ase studies can be a useful starting point for research progam ot liee-stadied, itle-uaderstood phenoment—incoding pariclarques- tions about cestivity in organizations, Before turning othe ith methodology and ts example, we consider some ofthe challenges facing research om creativity in organizations (CHALLENGES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY [RESEARCH AND SOME WAYS TO MEET THEM, (On the basis of our own research experience, and our reading ofthe literature, we have comet favor hybrid methodologies for tadyng cre stiviy. These ate methods that aes variery of approaches to examine people's though, feclings, reactions, and perfniac, in te coment (of given work envconment and a given tet of indvidal skills and styles. We believe thar such methodologies are the best way eo begin to Understand the complex phenomenon of organizational ctetiviry., We also believe that eis ue to pay more atention to the speci ways in ‘which work environments support or impede creativity, something that Only few researcher (eg. Soot 8 Broce, 1994) have stempred odo, In essence i stim to iliminate the particular evens and paters of ‘vents that might lat differential level of eeativiy in organizations (lest, this an immensely complex ask. Although pycholoicl nd ‘organizational theories can help us identify possibefafleaces,carefl and creative exploration willbe requived t discover previovay uns ‘ected forces impacting organizational ceaivity. To erly understand the complexities of creativity in organizations, it will be necessary to ‘combe the advantages of rigorovr quantitative methods uch ws mes. sures rom survey instrament) withthe power ofthe rich and detailed (if mes) information tac can he gained from cally collected and analyzed qualitative data, In addon, we belive chat si tie for onganizatonal creativity rescascers to take on two particular challenges she maltevel mature of orgasizational phenomens, and temporal sues. Compared to cratv- ig in the visual and leary ars, which often takes the fem of single indiviual working on one particular peodct at time, creativity conganzations is generally a mulepeson, mulkask affair: Within orga izations, several lees of analysis mute be considered events innolve inivdals individuals generally work in teams or groups, reams are tembecded within companies, and companies are embedded within indo tres creative outcomes can be astssed a any of these levels Fattors at ‘ach of ches leveli—from partial evens on particular day, to indus ‘ey dmuamics—can affect the creaziviey of outcomes, Thus, malievel

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi