http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/creativ7.

htm
Home > Scholarly-Like Articles >
What Do We Know About Enhancing Creativity and Innovation? A
Review of Literature
by Eleanor D. Glor
Introduction
The capacity of individuals and organizations to create innovations is a
crucial element of public sector innovation. ut do !e kno! ho! to enhance
creativity" The literature on this sub#ect is very large and beyond my
capacity to read and integrate. This paper is therefore a reflection of !hat $
have been able to grasp.
Several authors have e%amined the relationship among individuals in the
!orkplace. Theresa Amabile has produced the most empirical research&
e%ploring both personal characteristics and the interaction among people in
the !ork environment. 'ther researchers considered the interaction process
among !orkers and their personal and combined characteristics. Some
authors considered the !ay groups interact to be the most important factor.
'ne element& personal motivation& received a good deal of attention. A ne!
factor has been introduced from the (apanese e%perience - the conversion
of kno!ledge from personal& tacit forms into e%plicit forms& !hich can be
accessed by a !ider group of people& including the employer. This
individual-organizational interface is !here kno!ledge is created& and is
currently the key area for e%amination for several !riters.
What Promotes Creativity?
Theresa Amabile )*+,,- identified the factors that promoted problem
solving or personal creativity by studying a group of *./ innovators !orking
in research and development. Although one factor& 0ualities of the group&
assisted creativity& other group factors !ere not sho!n to do so. 1ersonal
characteristics !ere related to creativity& including specific personality traits&
self motivation& special cognitive abilities& a risk orientation& diverse
e%perience& e%pertise in the area& social skill& brilliance and naivet2 )pp.
*.,-*.+-. The 0ualities of problem solvers that inhibited creativity& on the
other hand& !ere lack of motivation )3/4-& unskilled ).54-& infle%ible
)..4-& e%ternally motivated )*54-& and socially unskilled )64- )p. *.+-.
$ndividual creativity !as enhanced& in other !ords& by domain relevant
skills& creativity-relevant skills and intrinsic task motivation.
7hile individual factors and initiative !ere important to creativity& social
environments also made a difference. 8nvironments that encouraged
creativity for these innovators e%hibited freedom )654-& good pro#ect
management )9:4-& and sufficient resources ):.4-. A half to a third of the
innovators identified the need for encouragement )564-& specific
organizational characteristics )5.4-& recognition )3:4- and sufficient time
)334-& !hereas only ..4 identified the need for challenge )..4- and
pressure )*.4-. They felt that organizations re0uired ;a mechanism for
considering ne! ideas& a corporate climate marked by co-operation and
collaboration across levels and divisions& and an atmosphere !here
innovation is prized and failure is not fatal; )p. *56-.
The 0ualities of environments that inhibited creativity& on the other hand&
!ere )various- organizational characteristics& constraint& organizational
disinterest& poor pro#ect management& evaluation& insufficient resources& a
corporate climate marked by a lack of co-operation across divisions and
levels and overemphasis on the status 0uo. T!o factors sometimes
described as innovation motivators !ere found not to be - constraint and
competition. )pp. *56-*5,-.
'ne notable aspect of these responses about environments !as ho! much
more important the innovators found the social factors to be than the
personal characteristics. The highest portion of innovators choosing any
single personal characteristic !as 5*4& !hile the top five of the group
characteristics& all received a higher rating. There !as therefore greater
consensus about social factors than individual ones. Another striking
element is ho! many of the group factors could be influenced by
management and ho! fe! by the innovators themselves. <anagement
usually determines the organizational characteristics& sets the tone for the
corporate climate& and determines !hether or not the organization is
interested in innovation. $t also controls !hether there are competent
pro#ect management& evaluation& sufficient resources& and an emphasis on
the status 0uo& constraint and competition.
7hile Amabile studied the characteristics of individuals and environments
contributing to and interfering !ith individual and organizational creativity&
ro!n )*+,+- and Harrington )*++/- understood organizational creativity as
a combination of the creative process& creative product& creative person&
creative situation& and ho! these components interacted together
)7oodman& Sa!yer& =riffin& *++3& p. .+5-. ;$ndividual creativity is a
function of antecedent conditions )e.g. past reinforcement history&
biographical variables-& cognitive style and ability )divergent thinking&
ideational fluency-& personality factors )self-esteem& locus of control-&
relevant kno!ledge& motivation& social influences )social facilitation& social
re!ards-& and conte%tual influences )physical environment& task and time
constraints-; )7oodman et. al.& *++3& pp. .+5& .+9-. $t is notable that the
manager and employees trying to encourage innovation cannot affect the
past& cognitive style& ability or personality of employees but can influence
kno!ledge& motivation& and social and conte%tual influences. 7hat the
manager could conceivably do is choose employees !ith certain historical&
cognitive& ability and personality profiles. A homogeneous and e%clusionary
!ork force could thereby be created& ho!ever& thus losing the potential
benefits of diversity.
Amabile focused on personal and social environmental characteristics&
ro!n and Harrington on the creative process combining the product&
person and situation. Like Amabile& >ing and Anderson )*++/- pointed to
!ork group characteristics as being key. They described the conditions of
group creativity as leadership )especially !hen democratic and
collaborative-& cohesiveness& group longevity& group composition& group
structure )organic rather than mechanistic-& and membership from diverse
fields or functional backgrounds. =roup cohesiveness and longevity seem
important group characteristics& but their relationship to creativity is not
totally clear. ?ystrom has suggested that there may be a curvilinear
relationship bet!een group cohesiveness and creative performance
)?ystrom *+6+-. 8%amining research teams& 1ayne )*++/- came to similar
conclusions& identifying the key role of ;...resource availability& leadership&
group size& cohesiveness& communication patterns& and group diversity as
crucial factors in creative performance; )7oodman et. al.& p. 3/.-. $f >ing
and Anderson and 1ayne are correct& then the recruiting strategies that
!ould seem to flo! out of Amabile& ro!n and Harrington@s !ork& !here
managers !ould attempt to find ;creative; staff )see belo!-& might in fact
be destructive of innovation.
1erhaps the key aspects are rather the !ay groups function. This
consideration lead to development of creativity-enhancing group techni0ues
such as brainstorming and mind mapping. Aollo!ing development of these
strategies& a revie! of literature by Stein )*+65- found that individuals
actually generate fe!er ideas in such groups )p. 3/3-. Hackman and <orris
)*+6:- proposed that group performance is reduced because of motivational
losses& but also& surprisingly& by processes and co-ordination )p. 3/3-.
1roblem-solving groups could improve their effectiveness& on the other
hand& by training individuals in problem solving skills )ottger B Cetton&
*+,6- )p.3/3-.
Techni0ues identified for enhancing organizational creativity included the
separation of solution generation and evaluation of solutions )Dummings
and '@Donnell& *+6,E asadur et al.& *+,.E asadur et. al.& *+,9-& risk
taking& free e%change of ideas& legitimization of conflict& stimulation of
participation& and reliance on intrinsic as opposed to e%trinsic re!ards.
7oodman et al. inferred& ho!ever& that there !as little empirical support for
these conclusions& e%cept for that provided by Amabile )*+,3-& although
; . . . correlation evidence !ith ratings of overall innovation has been
provided by 1aolillo and ro!n )*+6,- and Abbey and Fickson )*+,3-
)7oodman et al.& *++3& p. 3/9-.
This conclusion continues to be challenged by those !ho seek to teach
methods and train groups to be more creative - that is& those focusing on
the process rather than the product. Their approach treats creativity as at
least in part as a set of thinking skills. To asadur& =raen and Scandura
)*+,9-& creativity is enhanced !hen more time is spent producing ideas&
since the 0uality of ideas is the same throughout ideation& and !hen the
group avoids making premature critical evaluations of ideas. These authors
found that training focused on developing the thinking skills associated !ith
creativity )active divergence& deferral of #udgment& and active convergence-
lead to tangible outcomes in terms of the 0uantity and 0uality of creative
output. Trainers at the <anchester usiness School Dreativity Gesearch
Hnit& using methods developed by the pioneering programs of the Dreative
1roblem Solving $nstitute& uffalo )!hich !as also the basis for asadur@s
approach-& found that a one-day training program heightened a!areness of
personal capacity for creative action but did not have any impacts !ithout
reinforcing factors being in place in the !orkplace. A three-day program
may achieve valuable results if the person develops a critical mass of
trained people through formal or informal net!orking. The outputs of a ten-
day program included both tangible products such as contributions to
corporate innovation success and evidence of changes in behiours and
problem-solving strategies of participants. )Gickards& *++3& pp. *9.-:-
The heart of the matter is that group creativity is not the sum of the
individuals@ creativity !ithin the group. Gather& creative behaviour is
mediated through the group and is influenced by the group@s composition&
characteristics and processes& as !ell as the conte%t of the larger
organization. $n short& the group mediates individual behaviour& !hich
ultimately affects organizational creativity )p. 3/5-.
Amabile )*+,,& pp. *5.-3- has demonstrated that the intrinsically
motivated person is more creative than someone !ho is e%trinsically
motivated. An important conse0uence of this conclusion is that hierarchical
direction to innovate and top-do!n innovation !ould presumably not
produce very creative solutions. 'n the assumption that more creative ideas
are at least sometimes better ideas& ho! can the creativity of innovations
be enhanced" Amabile )*+,,- identified domain relevant skills& creativity-
relevant skills and intrinsic task motivation as the key elements. She
suggests that each one of the three components of her creativity model
)she calls it a ;multiplicative model; - it applies to individuals and small
groups& p. *5*I- is necessary for creativity to occurE the higher the degree
of each )all must be present- of the three components& the more creativity
there should be )p.*36-. Donceptualized as circles& individual creativity or
organizational innovation !ill be greatest !here the circles overlapE hence&
the ;creativity intersection;)p. *:9-. The implications of the ;Dreative
$ntersection;& applicable to both individual creativity and organizational
innovation& suggests that one should look for task skills& creative skills and
intrinsic motivation& !hen recruiting )p. *93-E environmental factors that
promote creativity should be bolsteredE and information should be used to
remove inhibitors to creativity )that is& remove obstacles before putting ne!
things in place- )p. *93-.
$f for the organization the key aspect of intrinsic motivation is that the
individual is then !illing to make personal kno!ledge available to the
government& !hat can be done to support and enhance that !illingness"
'ne approach is to value the contribution of employees& clients and the
public& and to consult !ith staff and clients& in order to access their ideas.
This is a key aspect of the 0uality movement and an approach used in many
innovations as !ell. Another approach is that used in many innovative
(apanese companies& !here management and teams are oriented to!ard
!orking !ith staff to access personal kno!ledge. $ku#iro ?onaka and
Hirotaka Takeuchi have e%plored the process !hich occurs interior to
creativity. According to ?onaka& appointed the first professor of kno!ledge
at Stanford Hniversity in *++9& ;<aking personal kno!ledge available to
others is the central activity of the kno!ledge-creating company.; )?onaka&
*++*& p. +,- 'f primary importance is the recognition that creating ne!
kno!ledge does not simply mean processing information& but ;...tapping the
tacit and often highly sub#ective insights& intuitions& and hunches of
individual employees and making those insights available for testing and
use by the company as !hole.; To do this employees must feel a personal
commitment and bond !ith the company and its mission. ?onaka sees this
as the organizational e0uivalent of self-kno!ledge& a shared sense of ;!hat
the company stands for& !here it is going& !hat kind of !orld it !ants to live
in& and most important& ho! to make that !orld a reality )?onaka& *++*& p.
+6-.
?onaka describes four basic patterns for creating kno!ledgeJ converting
tacit kno!ledge to tacit kno!ledge )socialization-& e%plicit to e%plicit
)combination-& tacit to e%plicit )e%ternalization-& and e%plicit to tacit
)internalization-. $n a kno!ledge-creating organization all four of these
interchanges occur. The (apanese are particularly good at the interchange
bet!een tacit and e%plicit information& the critical step in kno!ledge
creation )?onaka& *++*& p. ++-.
The kno!ledge-creating process of converting tacit kno!ledge into e%plicit
kno!ledge operates ;first& by linking contradictory things and ideas through
metaphorE then& by resolving these contradictions through analogyE and&
finally& by crystallizing the created concepts and embodying them in a
model& !hich makes the kno!ledge available to the rest of the company.;
)?onaka& *++*& p.*/*-. $n attempting to design a ne! and different car& for
e%ample& the pro#ect leader of Honda@s engineering team charged !ith the
task developed the sloganJ ;Theory of Automobile 8volution.; The 0uestion
!as asked ;$f the automobile !ere an organism& ho! should it evolve";
)?onaka& p.*//- The analogy re0uired reconciling the differences and
similarities of the t!o ideas e%pressed in the metaphor& ;car; and
;evolution.; $n the creative conte%t& then& managers must take a more
holistic approach !hich includes creating images& symbols and slogans.
)p.+6-
Leadership
Several !riters see leadership as a key linkage bet!een individual creativity
and kno!ledge and organizational innovation. Amabile observed parallels
bet!een organizational innovation and individual innovation& identifying
three primary components for organizational innovation. The first !as
motivation to innovate. Leadership influenced motivation. Leadership should
come from the highest level& but middle management could also be very
important. The organization should communicate value is placed on
innovation in generalE a !illingness to risk rather than an orientation
to!ards maintaining the status 0uoE a sense of pride in the organization@s
members and !hat they are capable of doingE and an offensive strategy of
taking the lead to!ard the future& not a defensive strategy of simply
!anting to protect the organization@s past position. )p. *:5-. The second
factor is resources& including people !ith kno!ledge& funds and training.
The final factor is skills in innovation management& including management
skills& and relevant branch& division and pro#ect level skills. <anagement
should be professional& balance freedom and constraint& and communicate
openly )pp. *:3-*::-.
?onaka focused on the individual-organizational interface as !ell. He sa!
middle management as the most important to innovation. The creation of
ne! kno!ledge is a result of interaction among front-line staff& middle
management and senior management. <ost in touch !ith the technologies&
products& or markets& front-line staff are the true e%perts& but turning the
information they use into useful kno!ledge& for many reasons& can be a
difficult task. The meaning of the information is continually shifting as it is
transferred and diffused throughout the organization. <iddle managers help
to transfer information into useful kno!ledge by providing conceptual
frame!orks for employees )pp. */.-*/3-. Senior managers ;give voice to a
company@s future by articulating metaphors& symbols& and concepts that
orient the kno!ledge-creating activities of employees. They do this by
asking the 0uestionsJ 7hat are !e trying to learn" 7hat do !e need to
kno!" 7here should !e be going" 7ho are !e" $f the #ob of front-line
employees is to kno! @!hat is&@ then the #ob of senior e%ecutives is to kno!
@!hat ought to be.@; )?onaka& *++*& p. */3-. $t is management@s task to
clear a!ay any obstacles and prepare the ground for teams and self-
organizing groups. Teams are an important part of innovation as they
provide for interaction& conflict& critical thinking& reflection& and constant
dialogue )p. */5-. <iddle management is key because it translates the tacit
kno!ledge of front-line !orkers and senior e%ecutives into e%plicit
kno!ledge and ultimately into ne! products and technologies. To this end&
;...they are the true @kno!ledge engineers@ of the kno!ledge-creating
company; )?onaka& p.*/5-. The best settings for innovation are not top-
do!n management nor bottom-up management& but middle-up-do!n
management& !here middle managers are at the very center of kno!ledge
management. They are the conduit bet!een top management@s vision and
the reality of front-line !orkers& and provide the conceptual model )pp.
*.5-*.+-. KHo! could this apply in the 7estminster system"L
?onaka and Hirotaka posit a ;hyperte%t organization; in !hich three totally
different conte%ts are coe%isting !ithin the same organization. The business
layer is the middle layer& used for routine operations and is shaped like a
pyramid !ith its tip at the middle management level. The pro#ect team layer
is the top layer& !here numerous teams engage in kno!ledge creation.
Team members come from various units& and are assigned to a specific
pro#ect team only until the pro#ect is complete. The kno!ledge-base layer is
at the bottom& !here organizational kno!ledge created in the other layers
is recategorized and reconte%tualized. This layer does not e%ist
organizationally& but is embedded in corporate vision& organizational culture
or technology. )pp.*99-*96-
Fennis =rady )*++.- also e%plored the role of managers in innovation&
studying *+/ supervisors and *9/ innovators& !ho identified the crucial
roles of managers in innovation. $n strengthening readiness& they created a
supportive climate of risk-taking and lateral thinking !ithin their
organizations. $nnovative managers supported ;fast failures; rather than the
classic public manager model of deliberative decision making& efficient use
of public resources and adherence to standard operating procedures. $n
support of approval& managers vie!ed the organization as an open system
connected to its political environment& built connections to e%ternal forces
to foster support for the innovation as it emerged& and shared a vie! of the
organizational environment !ith the innovative employee. Ainally& managers
re!arded innovation. ased on behaviourial theory& re!ards are
controversial& because they create a competitive environment. Like =rady&
7ilson )*+99- also sa! e%ecutives as being crucial to innovation.
Organizational Knowledge Creation and Continuous Innovation
To ?onaka continuous innovation is possible& and is dependent on
kno!ledge creation. $nnovation is seen as organizational kno!ledge
creation& in !hich the conversion of tacit& personal kno!ledge to e%plicit&
organizational kno!ledge is crucial. This sounds like creativity& as described
by other authors.
The first step in managing the kno!ledge-creating company& and a key
principle of organization design in (apanese companies is redundancy.
Transfer of tacit kno!ledge is increased as a result of fre0uent
communication and dialogueE strategic rotation& especially bet!een different
functions and technologiesE and free access to information )?onaka& p.*/.-.
$t is in the midst of redundancy and ambiguity that ne! kno!ledge is
created )?onaka and Hirotaka& *++:& p. *.-. Gedundancy sounds
synonymous to !aste and duplication for 7esterners& but it promotes
dialogue and communication. 7hen members of the organization share
overlapping information )share a ;common cognitive ground;- people can
get a sense of !hat others in the organization are trying to articulate. 7hile
redundancy primarily involves information sharing& this e%plicit kno!ledge
can then be internalized by employees )?onaka and Hirotaka& *++:& p. *5-.
Gedundancy is promoted by the management of ;...product development as
an overarching process in !hich different functional teams !ork together on
a shared division of labour )Takeuchi and ?onaka& *+,9-. Another aspect of
redundancy is revealed in many (apanese companies !hich take this
process even further and divide product development teams into competing
subgroups& !hich develop different approaches to the same product& the
advantagesMdisadvantages of each are then argued out& and a best
approach is decided upon )?onaka and Takeuchi& *++:& p.*5-.
(apanese companies have been successful because they are e%perts at
creating organizational kno!ledgeJ they create ne! kno!ledge& disseminate
it& embody it in products& systems and services& and so innovate. They do
this on a continual& incremental basis. $t should be noted that this goes
against the common vie! in the 7est that (apanese are only good at
imitation and adaptation& that they are not very innovative )?onaka and
Takeuchi& *++:& p. 3-.
According to ?onaka and Takeuchi& ho!ever& neither the (apanese nor
7estern models of kno!ledge creation& are best case scenariosE they both
e%hibit shortcomings. $n (apan the conversion of tacit to e%plicit kno!ledge
takes place primarily at the group level& but the (apanese tend to focus too
much on the figurative and symbolic rather than on more documented&
analytical approaches. The 7est& on the other hand& utilizes clear cut
decisions and conversion from tacit to e%plicit kno!ledge occurs primarily at
the individual level& focusing only on a fe! key people )p. ./+& .*/& ..9-. A
comparison of the 8uropean and (apanese approaches to developing high-
end automobiles illustrates the point. 7estern kno!ledge is e%plicit - it can
often be processed by a computer& !hereas (apanese kno!ledge is more
tacit - difficult to process or transmit by computer. 7hat is needed is an
approach that integrates the merits of both methodologies )p. ..9-.
Tacit kno!ledge is personal& difficult to formalize& sub#ective& intuitive& and
rooted in one@s actions and e%periences& ideals& values and emotions. <ore
specifically& tacit kno!ledge can be broken do!n into t!o componentsJ
informal skills captured in the term ;kno!-ho!; )this is the technical
dimension-& and a cognitive dimension consisting of ;...schemata& mental
models& beliefs& and perceptions so ingrained that !e take them for
granted. The cognitive dimension of tacit kno!ledge reflects our image of
reality )!hat is- and our vision for the future )!hat ought to be-.; )?onaka
and Takeuchi& p. ,-.
7estern kno!ledge is e%plicit - it can often be processed by a computer&
!hereas (apanese kno!ledge is more tacit - difficult to process or transmit
by computer. A comparison of the 8uropean and (apanese approaches to
developing high-end automobiles illustrates the point.
European-Style Japanese Style
'b#ective 1ursuit of superior performance Adaptation to changing needs
1roduct Appeal Aunction e.g. high-speed performance $mage and 0uality
1roduct concept
creation
Dlear-cut decision at the initial stage&
adhered to throughout the ensuing stages
Nague at the initial stage& modified and altered in
ensuing stages according to changing needs
Alo! of activities Se0uential approach 'verlapping approach
8nsuing process
Specific design targets fi%ed at initial stage
pursued under a strict division of labour
Dlose cooperation among all departments concerned
during the development
'rganization
'rganization according to function and often
under a pro#ect leader !ith limited authority
<atri% mgmtM pro#ect teams under a pro#ect leader !ith
authority over entire process - planning& production&
sales
Strengths
Donducive to relentless pursuit of superior
performance& function& high 0uality
Shorter lead time -3-5 years& high 0uality& attuned to
needs in the market
7eaknesses
Longer lead time )6-, years-& high
development costs
Gisk of compromise on a lo! levelE not conducive to an
all-out pursuit of superior performance
SourceJ ?onaka and Hirotaka& *++*& p. .**
'f course kno!ledge has to be shared to be usefulE therefore& tacit
kno!ledge must be transformed into e%plicit kno!ledge& and eventually
back into tacit kno!ledge - this is ho! organizational kno!ledge is created
)p. +-. The 7est believes that innovation is about putting together diverse
data or information& but in (apan the employees@ commitment to the
company and its mission is !hat is importantJ ;$n this respect& the creation
of ne! kno!ledge is as much about ideals as it is about ideas. The essence
of innovation is to recreate the !orld& including the company and everyone
in it& according to a particular ideal or vision.; )p. */-
?onaka and Hirotaka describe five conditions re0uired at the organizational
level to create the kno!ledge spiralJ intentionM aspiration to create
kno!ledgeE autonomy of !orkersE fluctuation and creative chaosE
redundancyE and re0uisite variety - an organization@s internal diversity must
match the variety and comple%ity of the environment )*++:& pp. 65-,3-.
They conceive a five-phase model of the organizational kno!ledge-creation
processJ sharing tacit kno!ledge& creating concepts& #ustifying concepts&
building an archetype& and cross-leveling of kno!ledge& !here the ne!
kno!ledge moves on to a ne! cycle of kno!ledge creation at both an intra-
and inter-organizational level )p. +/-. This process is similar to the one $
have identified for innovation )=lor& *++6a&bE *++,-.
$n summary& the key factors that seemed to support continuous innovation
in (apanese companies !ere effective conversion of tacit to e%plicit
kno!ledge& redundancy in information sharing and task assignment& and
continuous creation of the kno!ledge spiral.
Conclusion
ased on the literature revie!ed in this paper& one !ould conclude that it is
possible to support creativity and innovation. $ndividual creativity !as found
by Amabile to be mediated by the group and can be supported by the social
environment and management. 7oodman et. al. also found that the
elements impacting on creativity !hich employees and management could
influence !ere kno!ledge& motivation& social and )to some e%tent-
conte%tual influences. Studies reported contradictory findings on !hether
managers should create teams of creative people )a kind of homogeneity-
or teams !ith a diversity of backgrounds and skills. Like!ise& there !as no
consensus on !hether the !ay in !hich groups function and the processes
used !ith groups affected creativity& but it !as clear that the group
mediates individual creativity. Gecent (apanese !ork on kno!ledge creation
has described creativity in terms of making tacit kno!ledge e%plicit and has
suggested this process can be enhanced. 'ther key factors in creating
continuous innovation are information sharing and ongoing creation of the
;kno!ledge spiral;. Like!ise the social environment can facilitate the
intrinsically motivated individual making herMhis kno!ledge e%plicit. The
empirical underpinnings of these ideas are still limited& ho!ever& and some
authors continue to conclude that !e do not kno! ho! to facilitate personal
creativity )e.g. Fror& *++6-. Fror does agree& ho!ever& that ;)i-t is possible
to design organizational structures and processes !hich encourage
innovativeness and creativity.; )Fror& *++6& p. *:- The ne!est and most
interesting area of theory development is the individual-organizational
interface and ho! tacit kno!ledge can be converted into e%plicit kno!ledge.
Sources
Abbey& A. and (.7. Fickson. *+,3. ;GBF !ork climate and innovation in
semiconductors.; Academy of <anagement (ournal. .9J 39.-39,
Amabile& T.<. *+,3. The Social 1sychology of Dreativity. ?e! CorkJ
Springer-Nerlag
Amabile& Teresa <. *+,,. OA <odel of Dreativity and $nnovation in
'rganizations&I Gesearch in 'rganizational ehavior& Nol. */J*.3-*96.
asadur& <.& =.. =raen& S.=. =reen. *+,.. ;Training in Dreative 1roblem-
SolvingJ 8ffects on ideation and problem solving in an industrial research
organization.; 'rganizational ehavior and Human 1erformance. 3/J5*-6
asadur& <.& =. . =raen and T. A. Scandura. *+,9. ;Training 8ffects on
Attitudes To!ard Fivergent Thinking Among <anufacturing 8ngineers.;
(ournal of Applied 1sychology. Nol. 6* )5-J 9*.-9*
ottger& 1.D. and 1.7. Cetton. *+,6. ;$mproving =roup 1erformance by
Training in $ndividual 1roblem Solving.; (ournal of Applied 1sychology.
6.J9:*-9:6
ro!n& G.T. *+,+. ;DreativityJ 7hat Are 7e to <easure"; $n (. A. =lover&
G.G. Gonning& D.G. Geynolds& eds. Handbook of Dreativity. ?e! CorkJ
1lenum 1ress. 3-3.
Dummings& L. *+9:. ;'rganizational Dlimates for Dreativity.; (ournal of the
Academy of <anagement. ,J ../-..6
Dummings& L.L. and <.(. '@Donnell. *+6,. ;'rganizational $nnovationJ A
<odel and ?eeded Gesearch.; (ournal of usiness Gesearch. 9J33-:/.
Dzikszentmihalyi& <ihaly. *++/. Alo!& The 1sychology of 'ptimal
8%perience& ?e! CorkJ Harper B Go!
Fror& C. *++6. ;Felta-type senior civil service for the .*st century.;
$nternational Gevie! of Administrative Sciences. 93)*-J <archJ 6-.3
Frucker& 1. *++:. ;The $nformation 8%ecutives Truly ?eed.; Harvard
usiness Gevie!. (an-AebJ :5-9.
Aullan& <. *+,.. The <eaning of 8ducational Dhange& TorontoJ '$S8 1ressM
The 'ntario $nstitute for Studies in 8ducation
=ery& =.(. *++.. 8lectronic 1erformance Support SystemsJ Ho! and !hy to
remake the !orkplace through the strategic application of technology.
ostonJ 7eingarten 1ublications& $nc. 3, Dhauncy St.& oston& <ass. /.***
=lor& 8.F.& ed. *++6a. 1olicy $nnovation in the Saskatche!an 1ublic Sector&
*+6*-,.. TorontoJ Daptus 1ress
=lor& 8.F. *++6b. ;To!ards Hnderstanding the $nnovation 1rocess in
Danadian =overnments&; paper presented to the *++6 Goundtable&
$nternational $nstitute of Administrative Sciences& Puebec Dity& Danada& (uly
*5-*6& *++6
=lor& 8.F. *++,. ;1ublic Sector $nnovation in Danada&; chapter in Hoffman&
Gandy& Fiane (urko!ski& Nictor <ac>innon& (anice ?icholson& (ames Simeon&
1ublic AdministrationJ Danadian <aterials& Third 8dition& TorontoJ Daptus
1ress& *++,& 3//- 35/
=rady& F.'. *++.. ;1romoting $nnovations in the 1ublic Sector.; 1ublic
1roductivity and <anagement Gevie!. QN$J. )7inter-J *:6-*6*.
Hackman& (.G. and D.=. <orris. *+6:. ;=roup Tasks& =roup $nteraction
1rocesses& and =roup 1erformance 8ffectivenessJ A Gevie! and 1roposed
$ntegration.; $n L. erko!itz& ed. Advances in 8%perimental Social
1sychology. Nol. ,J56-++
Harrington& F.<. *++/. ;The 8cology of Human DreativityJ A 1sychological
1erspective.; $n <.A. Gunco and G.S. Albert& eds. Theories of Dreativity.
?e!bury 1ark& Dal. *53-*9+
>ing& ?. ;$nnovation at !orkJ the research literature&; *:-:+& in <.A. 7est
and (.L. Aarr. *++/. $nnovation and Dreativity at 7orkJ 1sychological and
'rganizational Strategies. ?e! Cork& TorontoJ (ohn 7iley B Sons
>ing& ?. and ?. Anderson. *++/. ;$nnovation in 7orking =roups.; $n <.A.
7est and (.L. Aarr& eds. $nnovation and Dreativity at 7ork. Dhichester&
8nglandJ 7iley. ,*-*//
?onaka& $. *++/. ;Gedundant& 'verlapping 'rganizationJ A (apanese
Approach to $nnovation&; Dalifornia <anagement Gevie!. 3.J 3 )Spring-J
.6-3,
?onaka& $. *++*. ;The >no!ledge-Dreating Dompany&; HG& ?ov-FecJ +9-
*/5.
?onaka& $. and H. Takeuchi. *++:. The >no!ledge-Dreating DompanyJ Ho!
(apanese Dompanies Dreate the Fynamic of $nnovation. ?e! CorkJ '%ford
Hniversity 1ress
?ystrom& H. *+6+. Dreativity and $nnovation. LondonJ 7iley
1aolillo& (.=. and 7.. ro!n. *+6,. ;Ho! 'rganizational Aactors Affect GBF
$nnovation.; Gesearch <anagement. .*J*.-*:
1ayne& G. *++/. ;The 8ffectiveness of Gesearch TeamsJ A Gevie!.; $n <.A.
7est and (.L. Aarr & eds. $nnovation and Dreativity at 7ork. Dhichester&
8nglandJ 7iley. */*-*..
1inkus& (. *+65. ;$ncentives for $nnovation in 1ublic Schools.; Gevie! of
8ducational Gesearch. 55J **3-*55
Gickards& T. *++3. ;Dreativity Arom a usiness School 1erspectiveJ 1ast&
1resent and Auture.; in $saksen& Scott& <ary <urdock& Goger Airestien and
Fon Treffinger& eds. ?urturing and Feveloping DreativityJ The 8mergence of
a Fiscipline. ?or!ood& ?(J Able% 1ublishing Dorporation
Gogers& 8. <. *+,3. Fiffusion of $nnovations. ?e! CorkJ The Aree 1ressJ A
Fivision of <ac<illan
Sofer& D. *+9*. 'rganizations from 7ithin. LondonJ Tavistock
Stein& <.$. *+65. Stimulating Dreativity& Nol *. ?e! CorkJ Academic 1ress
Takeuchi& H. and $. ?onaka. *+,9. ;The ?e! 1roduct Fevelopment =ame.;
Harvard usiness Gevie!. (an-AebJ *36-*59
7ilson& (.P. *+99. ;$nnovation in 'rganizationJ ?otes To!ard a Theory&; in
(.F. Thompson& 8d. Approaches to 'rganizational Fesign. 1ittsburghJ
Hniversity of 1ittsburgh 1ress
7hiteside& T. *+6,. The sociology of educational innovation. LondonJ
<ethuen
7oodman& Gichard 7.& (ohn 8. Sa!yer& and Gicky 7. =riffin& ;To!ard a
Theory of 'rganizational Dreativity&; Academy of <anagement Gevie!& Nol.
*,& ?o. . )*++3-. .+3-3.*.
Raltman& =.& Funcan& G. and Holbek (. *+63. $nnovations and
'rganizations. ?e! CorkJ 7iley

Updated arch !"# !$$%
Last updated& 'ovem(er )""$
The Innovation Journal ISSN 1715-3816 1995-2010, Eleanor lor