FURTHER READING
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterpro- ductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stress- ors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,291−309.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behav- ior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning spe- cific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.
Journal of Management, 24,391−419.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993).
Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities:
Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 78,679−703.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555−572.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K.
Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),Handbook of indus- trial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145−164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434−443.
processes—is idea generation, which is typically measured using divergent-thinking tests. In organiza- tions, idea generation is often called brainstorming.
Much of the empirical work on divergent thinking and brainstorming has focused on fluency, or the number of ideas, as the main way to evaluate idea generation.
However, it is clear that just having a large quantity of ideas is not necessarily related to having good or cre- ative ideas. Research has shown that providing instruc- tions on the goals of the idea generation focuses the attention of the problem solver on that goal, resulting in different outcomes based on the instructions.
Instructions to be creative, flexible, or original increase the creativity, flexibility, and originality of the ideas generated, respectively. Instructions to focus on one goal at a time lead to more solutions but ones that only solve for that goal, whereas instructions to solve for two conflicting goals result in fewer solutions but more complex ones that attempt to solve both issues pre- sented. Instructions seem to provide a way to evaluate ideas and therefore determine whether the ideas gener- ated match what is needed. However, very little research has explored the idea-evaluation process specifically.
Finally, later phases of creative problem solving necessitate cognitive processes that facilitate imple- mentation planningand monitoring. This includes the generation of contingency plans for the implementa- tion of the idea and the monitoring of the actual implementation to make changes as necessary.
Although both implementation planning and monitor- ing are cognitive in nature, the actual implementation and carrying out the changes needed because of mon- itoring involves more social processes, and therefore they are typically viewed as innovation (the imple- mentation of a creative idea).
Domain-Relevant Skills and Knowledge Creativity cannot occur in a vacuum. Studies have shown that domain-relevant knowledge is required for the generation of novel and useful ideas. An individ- ual must have a foundation on which to develop a cre- ative idea. However, it has been suggested that a high degree of expertise may lead to habitual performance, thereby hindering creativity. In addition, diverse infor- mation may be beneficial for creativity because it helps to break the rigidity of thinking that can result from too much knowledge in any given area.
Therefore, the ideal level of knowledge required for creativity is believed to fall somewhere between the novice and expert levels.
Personality
Research in this area has investigated the relation- ship between personality variables and creative per- formance. Openness to experience, a component of the five-factor model, has been most consistently linked to creative performance across domains.
Creative individuals are often described as indepen- dent, persistent, introverted, curious, self-confident, driven, impulsive, and tolerant of ambiguity. In addi- tion, several personality variables have been linked to creative performance in one domain but not another.
For example, a meta-analysis reviewing studies on personality and creativity revealed that creative scien- tists tend to be more conscientious and closed-minded relative to noncreative scientists and creative artists, whereas creative artists tend to be more emotionally unstable and reject groups norms relative to both cre- ative and noncreative scientists.
Attitudinal variables have received limited atten- tion in creativity research; however, research that does exist suggests that they are important. Studies have shown that individuals who have a preference for ideation, value new ideas, and delay premature clo- sure are able to generate more creative ideas. Attitudes toward creativity may provide the motivational force to apply the cognitive processes needed for creative performance.
Motivation
Theresa Amabile’s seminal work on the effect of motivation on creativity suggests that intrinsic moti- vation is critical for creative performance. Providing rewards may hinder creativity by creating an extrin- sic as opposed to an intrinsic motivation. However, current research suggests that not all external rewards have a negative impact. External rewards may provide informational or controlling cues.
Informational cues let the individual know what is important and improve performance, and therefore they increase intrinsic motivation. Controlling cues focus the attention of the individual on the external reward and evaluation, thereby contributing to extrin- sic motivation.
Creativity at Work———127
ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY Job and Team Characteristics
An important factor that distinguishes the study of creativity at work from other forms of creativity is the focus on context. Studies focusing on organizational factors suggest that complex jobs characterized by high levels of autonomy allow for more creativity. In addition, organizational creativity has more social and financial constraints than other environments in which creativity is studied. Because of the social and collab- orative nature of creativity in organizations, group and leader effects have been the focus of research on creativity in this area.
Most teams in organizations comprise members with different expertise (i.e., cross-functional teams), which can both facilitate and hinder creativity.
Research has suggested that teams that have a diversity of knowledge and skills but still share common goals are more creative. In addition, because information must be shared and the problem facing the team is ill defined (that is, there is no right or wrong solution), open communication that allows for disagreement and collaboration among group members is important.
These factors point to the importance of team climate in facilitating creative performance. Teams and organi- zational climates that facilitate trust, open communica- tion, risk taking, and support for creativity have been found to facilitate creative performance.
Leadership
Organizational leaders play an important role in creating the climate of the work group and the organi- zation. Numerous studies have found that leaders who are supportive, provide informational (nonjudgmen- tal) feedback, and involve employees tend to facilitate creativity. Transformational leaders have been found to facilitate creativity more than transactional leaders.
In addition, leaders, as boundary spanners and gate- keepers, provide resources and remove obstacles.
Leaders may facilitate creativity by providing team members with the time and financial resources neces- sary for creative performance. Leaders may also facilitate smooth information exchange with other organizational units. Another important role provided by leaders (although not exclusively) is that of role modeling. Research suggests that observing a creative role model may allow an observer to learn creativity- relevant skills and strategies and model how they
should be implemented. Finally, leaders may serve in the role of champion, supporting the efforts of both team members and other members of the organization.
OUTCOMES
Only limited empirical work has been conducted on the outcomes of creativity. Creativity and innovation typically serve as criteria of interest, not as predictors.
Creativity has been linked to the implementation of innovative ideas and patents, to increased organi- zational flexibility and adaptability, and to organiza- tional growth and increased profit. However, models of organizational creativity stress that much of the impact of creativity may not be realized in the short term and may actually hurt short-term performance.
Specifically, factors that contribute to creativity may hurt day-to-day productivity. Not only do employees need to invest time and resources in the creative process, taking away from time and resources invested in current operations, but also the same factors that facilitate performance in routine tasks, such as struc- ture, attention to detail, and conformity, can hinder creative performance.
FOSTERING CREATIVITY
Understanding what contributes to creativity allows us to determine what organizational policies and prac- tices to enact to foster it. Much of the empirical work on enhancing and fostering creativity has focused on training. How training is structured and what content is taught is based, in part, on the framework used to understand creativity. Creativity training that focuses on cognitive processes—most notably, divergent thinking and brainstorming—has been found to be successful. In addition, creativity training directed at the attitudinal and motivational aspects that contribute to creative performance or the social interaction pat- terns that facilitate creativity has shown promising results. A meta-analysis of more than 70 studies of creativity training found that creativity training as a whole is effective, and training focusing on cogni- tive processes produces the best and most consistent results.
Surveys of organizational practices indicate that companies are using selection systems to identify cre- ative talent prior to hiring; however, research on the efficacy of such practices is lagging. Other recom- mendations include redesigning organizations and 128———Creativity at Work
jobs to create more complex jobs in which employees have more autonomy and opportunity to show creative performance. Again, very little research has been con- ducted in this area. The use of rewards, either mone- tary or through performance appraisal, has also been suggested as a way to enhance creative performance.
Rewards must be perceived as informational and not controlling in order to have the desired effect; how- ever, the factors that contribute to the perception of rewards or performance appraisals as informational are not well delineated.
Organizational interventions designed to enhance creativity include improving the organizational culture and climate. Specifically, creating an environment that supports creativity by allowing for risk taking and openness and providing the resources necessary will foster creativity. Other organizational interventions include creating diverse, cross-functional teams and facilitating knowledge and information sharing through technologies such as knowledge management software. Virtual teams have been suggested as one way to facilitate creative performance because they may allow for greater diversity and acceptance of indi- viduals from different backgrounds. Finally, leaders are viewed as an important facilitator of creativity at work. Finding or training an individual who can lead creative employees successfully will facilitate the creative performance of individuals and teams.
—Roni Reiter-Palmon and Jody J. Illies
See alsoInnovation
FURTHER READING
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Basadur, M. (1997). Organizational development interven- tions for enhancing creativity in the workplace. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31,59−72.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scien- tific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2,290−309.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing cre- ativity in the domain of managerial decision making.
Journal of Management, 26,705−732.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups.
Creativity Research Journal, 13,185−195.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter- Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic
models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4,91−122.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39,607−634.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76−87.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30,933−958.