CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW, AND THEORETICAL AND
2.13 Creativity (CR)
2.13.1 Variables of Creativity
2.13.1.1 Problem Sensitivity
“Every sensitive person is unusually creative” (Aharon-Peretz &
Perry, 2011). There are some features, sensitivity to delicate gaps, irregularities, inconsistencies, absurdities and many more that denote chances for solving creative problems. Sensitivity is concerned in creativity. Currently sensitivity is defined as a biological-based personality dimension (Evans & Rothbart, 2007). Openness and sensitivity mainly determine various creative activities and establish vantage- sensitivity (Bridges & Schendan, 2018). A study by Evans and Rothbart addresses the
gap to understand distinct changes in creativity, and focused on sensitivity (Evans &
Rothbart, 2007). A study by Liang, Chang, Cang, and Lin (2012) collected samples from two groups validated with both EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) and CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) analysis. They found that the first dimension,
‘creative imagination’, included five indicators. Lian (2012) and Lin mentioned that:
“intuition, sensibility where individuals are able to evoke feelings during the creation process, productivity exploration and novelty. Another dimension was reproductive imagination which included another five indicators of focusing, effectiveness, transformation, crystallization and dialectics. The indicator for the sensibility indicator was – I often help myself imagine through personal emotion. The result drawn with distinct validity” (Lian, Chang, Chang, & Lin, 2012).
Martindel et al. (1999) found in their research that creative individuals are extraordinarily sensorial (Martindale, 1999). Akinola and Mendes (2008) stated that: “creativity is related to sensitivity to emotion as people who are biologically sensitive to negative affect score higher on creative measures than people less vulnerable” (Akinola & Mendes, 2008). A meta-analysis following the quantitative method by Feist in 1998 found that creative people are more advances in terms of frankness, inwardness, and emotions, and show sensitivity compared to less creative persons (Feist, 1998). Aron (2010) conducted a research based on the hypothesis that a “positive mood promotes creativity” for sensitivity. In this study, Aron wanted to find out how sensitivity affects neurocognition and the interaction of “sensitivity and big five personality” (Aron et al., 2010). Sensitivity has interactive and independent impacts on creativity (Bridges & Schendan, 2018). Runco (2014) states the following:
“openness interacts with a range of behaviors and tendencies, including autonomy, unconventionality and sensitivity” (Runco, 2014). This research examined the association between creativity and sensitivity where the main hypothesis was
“different factors of sensitivity have different relationships with creativity" and where they found that openness and creativity depend on sensitivity (Runco, 2014). Bridges and Schendan (2018) studied sensitivity and showed that the creativity-sensitivity relationship resulted in a positive environment and ensured higher creativity (Bridges
& Schendan, 2018).
2.13.1.2 Fluency of Ideas, Flexibility of Thoughts, and Originality……
Last many years test of divergent thinking is the most frequently used measures for creativity. The category of divergent thinking, found the most significant class in terms of invention and creative thinking (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1968).
According to the literature it is clear that three features of divergent thinking are mentioned frequently: fluency of ideas, flexibility of thoughts, and originality. A book by Kaufman, Plucker and Baer (2008) illustrated these features with an example: to celebrate an occasion with a social gathering in a restaurant, the host may list certain possible venues. He or she may select a list of fifty possible restaurants, which is called high fluency. About the lists of the restaurants which have been identified as the venue, his or her friends may be unconvincing or doubtful about that restaurants, which is called high originality. Kaufman has given an example: “A list of restaurants with a wide range is called high flexibility and a list with only Indian or Thai restaurants but every possible establishment is high elaboration” (Kaufman, Plucker,
& Baer, 2008).
Fluency, flexibility, and originality are the key concepts of different thinking under area specification. Divergent thinking is the vital sponsor of creativity.
1) Fluency of Ideas
Albert and Runco (1990) stated the following: “The capacity to generate associated ideas along the same line of thought. Fluency is the total number of responses to a given stimuli, the total number of ideas given on any one divergent thinking exercise” (Albert & Runco, 1999).
2) Flexibility of Thoughts
Guilford and Hoepfner stated the following: “The ability to develop diverse possibilities or ideas across different lines of thought. Flexibility is the number of different categories or kinds of responses to a given stimuli or more broadly, a change in the meaning, use or interpretation of something” (Guilford &
Hoepfner, 1968).
3) Originality
“Seeing potential solutions or idea that other people do not even consider or arrive at. Originality is the distinctiveness of responses to a given
stimuli - the unusualness of an examinee’s or respondents’ ideas” (Albert, R. S., &
Runco, 1999).
Factors which comprise creativity: a model, developed by Ronald D. Klein was based on an extended view of creativity. This is useful for discussing the traditional measurement of creativity. In the model, Klein identifies several factors of creative thinking. Guilford, Paul, and Torrance developed a test which is known as (before the Minnesota test of creative thinking) the Torrance test of creative thinking (1974). With this test, fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality are measured (Klein, 1982).
Figure 2.1 Klein Model of Creative Behavior (1982)
In the mentioned model, modes and contents include four processes, which are fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality, and the model shows how they contain creative behavior.
Table 2.4 Matrix of Contents and Processes of Fluency, Flexibility and Originality Processes
Processes
Contents Fluency Flexibility Originality
Perceiving To perceive using many senses.
To perceive through different modes of stimulation – intution, visceral, psychomotor autonomic.
To perceive things that may or may not
exist—eidetic images, fantasies, mirages.
Affecting To have a large repertoire of expressible feelings.
To feel emotions as they occur, being sensitive to the world around you.
To express only what you are feeling, not being externally motivated, developing a rich sense of
imagination.
Intellecting To think quickly and in quantity, generating a large number of ideas or posibilities.
To think in different modes, ideating using different categories and mind sets.
To think in new, unique, clever, unusual terms.
Responding To respond to situations spontenously, genuinely, and intuitively.
To respond in many ways, increasing your reportoire of
responses, taking risks, trying the unknown.
To respond in unique ways, encouraging divergent bahavior.
Source: Klein (1982).
Hornberg and Palmon (2017) stated that “fluency is scored by counting the number of ideas a participant produced in a given period of time that were relevant to the situation, flexibility is scored by counting the number of ideational categories or themes that were generated during a divergent thinking task by a participant. Finally, originality is scored by rating the novelty of an idea generated by a participant during a divergent thinking task” (Hornberg & Reiter-Palmon, 2017).
The most common relationship is openness to experience and divergent thinking, and this was first reported by McCrae (1978). He mentioned that: “four divergent thinking tasks scored for fluency, one of two divergent thinking tasks scored for originality and a composite divergent thinking score that summated the fluency and originality scores had significant medium positive correlations with several different openness to experience measures” (Mccrae, 1987). King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) also found the medium relation. They expressed that: “there is a medium positive correlation between a standardized and summed composite divergent thinking score that included six different divergent thinking tasks that were scored for both fluency and originality and openness to experience” (King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996).
2.13.1.3 Imagination
Imagination is first and foremost the condition for creativity and innovation. Boden explained imagination as follows: “Visualizing something that is not yet apparent or real to the senses it is perhaps an uncontroversial truth that the imagination is important for creative thought. The terms creative and imaginative are often used interchangeably, at least in popular contexts. One can imagine situations that have not and will never happen. One can imagine the truth of propositions of which one is uncertain. One can imagine consequences to an action before performing it. This is for the simple reason that creative things are in part, new things and new things are sometimes new combinations of old things, combinations of concepts, ideas, skilled, knowledge, and so on or stronger, creativity may involve thoughts or actions that are radically novel, not merely conceptual combinations of existing materials. It may involve a radical transformation of a conceptual space” (Boden 2004).
Psychologists have defined imagination as generating new ideas or products that have the guarantee of originality and uniqueness. Creativity lies in imagination. Albert Einstein specified imagination as follows: “Logic will take you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” George Bernard Shaw also spoke out about imagination as follows: “imagination is the beginning of creation.
You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine, and at least you create what you will.”
The literature has proved that imagination and creativity are interrelated and sometimes they are interdependent; one is the source of another but still there are some differences between these two, and thus they are not the same thing. The differences of creativity and imagination have been made crystal clear by the example given by Robinson: “Imagination is the ability to bring to mind things that are not present to our senses. We can imagine things that exist or things that do not exist at all. If we asked to think of an elephant, old school, or best friend we can bring to mind mental images that are drawn from real experiences. Creativity is a step further from imagination. Creativity is a process of having original ideas that have value. It is a process and not an event and it can be taught. Creativity involves putting your imagination to work. In a sense, creativity is application of imagination.” The studied literature can sum up three types of imagination which are interlinked with each other and sometimes overlap. They are creative imagination, fantastical imagination, and episodic imagination.
1) Creative imagination: This sort of imagination is different from the regular or everyday imagination, i.e. to solve household problems or make some show pieces or crafts for home decoration. Research findings have explored the idea that this type of creative imagination has two phases: convergent and divergent.
The capability to imagine or think or picturization in mind of wide variety by spontaneous quick and automatic thinking is divergent one. On the other hand, slow cautious analytical thinking is convergent and that help to assess the usefulness of the real problem.
2) Fantastic imagination: When someone needs to solve a problem with a successful solution with creative skill, that ability is called fantastic
imagination. This type of imagination shows the best commitment of predicted and invented solutions.
3) Episodic Imagination: Here is a similarity between fantastic and episodic imagination. Episodic imagination predominantly uses the real recalls in details, which is known as episodic rather semantic, which is imaginary. Study has shown that the use of imagination in visualizing the process rather than the outcome brings about more success. Lian (2012) stated the following in this regard:
“Imagination is the basis of cultivating creative thinking and thus the driving force of innovation. Creativity related research has progressed for many years, but the understanding of imagination and its indicators still remain unclear. so far few studies have clearly discussed how imagination manifests itself, let alone developed an evaluation tool for assessing imagination” (Lian et al., 2012).
2.14 Creativity and Innovation
Amabile (1996) defined creativity as follows: “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain” and defined innovation as “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization” (Amabile et al., 1996). Amabile also argued that creativity by individuals and teams and organizations is a starting point for innovation. He added the psychological perceptions of innovation within an organization, which is called the implementation of people’s ideas that generate new ideas (Amabile et al, 1996). The root of all innovation is creativity (Amabile et al, 1996). Amabile also claims creativity as the landmark for the discussion of innovation (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). This argument of Amabile has been accepted by many researchers later on. Usta and Unsar (2015) stated the following:
“Organizations usually need to spend potential human efforts and financial resources, and set strategies in order to be able to create a coherent innovative climate between their employees. It is not enough to have only creative employees in order to transform regular organizations to innovative ones, instead organizations need to encourage creativity of their employees by supporting and promoting a creative work environment so that novelties can be turned from ideas to real outcomes” (Usta &
Unsar, 2015). Roffe (1999) mentioned the suitable system, which was called the
‘reward system’, which pays employees that are innovative and the organization will receive creative outcomes (Roffe, 1999). Some changes in the organizational culture in an organization can have a direct effect in intrinsic motivation that brings about employee creativity (Ammabile, 1989). In the same way, some wrong practices may have a bad impact on employee creativity, such as strict deadlines for targets, and tight routines or schedules (Ammabile, 1989). Imran Rehman and Fatima in 2009 in a research conceded and recommended that leadership, innovation (organizational) support, creativity in the work environment, the style of management, the system of supervision, job complexity, and organizational culture support organizational as well as employee creativity (Imran, Rehman, & Fatima, 2009).
Componential theory is a combination of both creativity and innovation, and there is an interdependency between these two. Because of this close relationship authors sometimes use them interchangeably (Hoerl & Gardner, 2010). Oddane (2015) discussed these two concepts in terms of “discipline-based synonyms”
(Oddane, 2015). Some have argued that creativity is the first required step root for innovation (Amabile, 1996; Lin & Liu, 2012). Irrespective of the interdependency and the interrelationship of these two, some differences have been identified. One of them is “creativity comprises the creation of useful and novel ideas while innovation requires turning these ideas into new process and products” (Gurteen, 1998; Oddane 2015; Sarooghi, 2015). Another difference is “creativity produces innovation” while
“innovation produces creative ideas” (Shea & Buckley, 2007:102).
2.15 Conceptual Framework
On the basis of a rigorous literature review, the following conceptual model has been drawn. The model shows the influences of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support as independent variables, and perceived organizational culture as a moderator, and finally, creativity as a mediating factor of public service innovation outcomes. The hypotheses are as follows:
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework
2.16 Hypotheses
The above conceptual framework shows the direct and indirect influences of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support, where perceived organizational culture is a moderating factor and creativity is a mediating factor on public service innovation outcomes.
The researcher has proposed a conceptual framework and developed a model along with the following nine hypotheses. These hypotheses have been established to test the public service innovation outcome model with the support of the empirical studies and literature.
H1: Transformational leadership (TL) is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes.
H2: Perceived organizational support (POS) is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes.
H3: Transformational leadership is positively associated with creativity.
H4: Perceived organizational support is positively associated with creativity.
Public Service Innovation
Outcomes Relevance Effectiveness
Efficiency H1
H2 H3
H4 H5
H6
H8
H9 Transformational
Leadership Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Perceived Organizational
Support Team Cohesion Rewards & Recognition
Technological Support Replication Scope
Creativity Perceived
Organizational Culture
H
H5: Transformational leadership is positively associated with perceived organizational culture.
H6: Perceived organizational support is positively associated with perceived organizational culture.
H7: Perceived organizational culture (POC) moderates the relationship of transformational leadership with creativity.
H8: Perceived organizational culture moderates the relationship of perceived organizational support with creativity.
H9: Creativity mediates the relationship of 1) transformational leadership and 2) perceived organizational support with public service innovation outcomes.
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Methodology……….
Two very well-known and conspicuous concepts of research methodology and research design should be simplified before beginning the discussion in the current chapter, and before that, it is obvious that the following question needs to be clarifies:
“What is Research?”. Saunders (2007) refers to this as “something that people undertake in order to find out new things in a systematic way, thereby increasing their knowledge” (Saunders et al., 2007). Identification of a particular research problem, data collection, and the analysis of data and study findings are included in the research process (Mafuwaen, 2003).
The organized way of doing research is the research method. A research method shows the proper and particular steps of the research according to its hypotheses and questions (Kjell Erik Rudestam, 2001). Generally, it depends on the research questions types. Quantitative and qualitative types of research are different in their characteristics. Descriptive, analytical, and predictive research are perfect for the quantitative type of research and case studies, focused group discussion, and observation is suitable for the qualitative type of research. Currently, the mixed- methods type of research is becoming popular, which is a combined form of both quantitative and qualitative methods. This chapter also describes the process of the research, including the research design, unit of analysis, population, sample size, sampling, operational definitions, scale measurements, data collection methods, and also the data analysis methods of this study. The chosen ethical considerations are included in this chapter as well.
3.2 Research Design
The plan of choosing the areas, topics, study sites, and the data collection process that will answer the specific study questions is the research design (Le Roux, 2011). In a simple way, a procedural plan, accepted by the researcher to answer his or her questions in a legal way, is the research design. It should be unbiased and precise.
In order to obtain the expected results, a research design will fix the form of analysis that the researcher should carry out. Whether the design is perfect or not will depend on whether the researcher will be able to obtain the answers to his or her research questions. Thus, if the design is poor the results of the study will also be poor and not favorable. Therefore, the importance of the research design is placing all of the mechanisms of a project together.
The current study has followed both the quantitative and qualitative styles, which is a mixed-methods research design of collecting and analyzed data. Mixed- methods can be explained as a “type of research design in which qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in types of questions, research methods, data collection analysis procedures, and/or inferences” (Tashakkori, & Teddlie, 2003).
When the researcher uses the qualitative or quantitative method separately, both are valuable but they are found more powerful when the researcher uses them together (Cresswell, 2009). Throughout the 20th century, in the social and behavioral sciences, researchers repeatedly employed mixed-method, and this has continued into the 21st century (Brewer, J., & Hunter, 1989), (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989), (Maxwell
& Loomis, 2003), (Tashakkori, & Teddlie, 2003), (Cresswell, 2009). Thus, in order to generate a complete sense of interpreting and explaining data, mixed-methods research is the best.
This present study has followed the quantitative as well as qualitative methods, and the qualitative part will be used as a supplement to fulfill the information gap in order to enrich the discussion and to offer some recommendations that can contribute to policy formulations for the government of Bangladesh.