J PROD INNOV MANAG 2013;30(S1):110125

2013 Product Development & Management Association

DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12066

Cross-Cultural Creativity: Conceptualization and Propositions

for Global New Product Development
Esi Abbam Elliot and Cheryl Nakata

In todays global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order to
survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations with
worldwide appeal, such as Apples iPad and Gillettes Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD,
businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences on
approaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and for
multiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity.
While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and management
assumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role of
creativity in NPD practices in a cross-cultural or global context.
The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross-cultural
creativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modes
of creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route.
The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses on
disruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativity
in distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions are
formulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework and
propositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typically
more than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest to
researchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, and
managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.

reativity is of growing interest to researchers

and practitioners of global new product development (NPD) (Vissers and Dankbaar, 2002).
This interest stems from observations that creativity in
global firms leads to successful new products. Among
companies with international reach known for their creative impulses and impactful new products are Apple,
Nintendo, and Procter & Gamble (Business Week, 2008).
Apple has been lauded for inventive, eye-appealing electronic devices from iPads to iPhones, which have grabbed
the imagination as well as pocketbooks of consumers
globally. Nintendo has developed Wii, the worlds bestselling console that enables interactive sensory-based
game-playing for tennis, bowling, and many popular

Address correspondence to: Esi Abbam Elliot, Suffolk University,

Sawyer School of Business, Marketing Department, Sawyer Building, 73
Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108. E-mail: eaelliot7@gmail.com. Tel:
(773) 991-0160.
The two authors contributed equally to this paper.

sports. Procter & Gamble has introduced a bevy of new

household items, such as a Tide detergent specially formulated to keep clothes like new, generating strong
sales in more than a hundred countries. In todays intensively competitive business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to grow revenues in order to
survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring NPD
efforts lead to innovations with worldwide appeal.
The notion that creativity is tied to NPD is not new. It
has long been conjectured that creativity enhances NPD
by providing the ideas, motivations, and perspectives for
complex innovation endeavors (Von Krogh, Nonaka, and
Manfried, 2001. Although businesses would want to
leverage creativity for effective global NPD, they may
have little knowledge to guide their efforts. Based on a
later review of the innovation and marketing literatures, it
appears that no prior research has been conducted on the
creativityNPD relationship in an international context.
Importantly, that review reveals that country setting
affects NPD processes and outcomes, with national

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

culture playing an especially prominent role (Nakata and

Sivakumar, 1996; Song and Parry, 1997a, 1997b; Song,
Xie, and Dyer, 2000). Meta-analyses of NPD and marketing studies conclude that innovation practices and
results are not geographically neutral but culturally contingent (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kirca,
Jayachandran, and Bearden, 2005).
To address the above knowledge gap, the intersection
of culture, creativity, and NPD is studied in this paper.
The specific purpose is to understand the influence of
creativity on NPD practices in a cross-cultural or global
context. This study is conducted by first reviewing the
creativity literature within and outside the fields of NPD
and marketing. Next, a new culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity is proposed. Called cross-cultural
creativity, the concept draws on the field of art and aesthetics for perspectives on creativity. Thereafter, this
concept, along with knowledge on international innovation, is used to posit how cross-cultural creativity affects
NPD practices as illustrated by Japan and the United
States. These insights are captured as research propositions. As discussed by Yadav (2010), theoretical work
that brings together previously unconnected fields to generate new concepts is crucial for the advancement of
knowledge. Last, the managerial and research implications of cross-cultural creativity and its role in NPD are
discussed. The study will be of interest to researchers
needing a globally situated and culturally relevant conceptualization of creativity for NPD studies, as well as
managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational
and multicultural innovation projects.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Esi Abbam Elliot is an assistant professor of marketing at Suffolk
University. Her research interests are in cocreation creativity, emerging
markets, and innovation. She has published her studies in Journal of
Business Research, and presented them at the American Marketing
Association, Association for Consumer Research, and the Academy of
International Business conferences.
Dr. Cheryl Nakata is a professor of marketing & international business
at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She received her Ph.D. in
marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago and master of management at Northwestern University. Her research interests are in
culture, innovation, marketing strategy, and global markets, including
base of the pyramid. Her studies have appeared in Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of
International Business Studies, among others, and have won best paper
awards from the American Marketing Association and the Academy of
Marketing Science. She is on the editorial board of four academic
journals, and was PDMA Vice President of Academic Affairs from
2010 to 2012.

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

111

Literature Review
For this study, the relevant extant works are creativity
studies within the NPD and marketing domains and those
outside, especially from the field of art and aesthetics.
Within NPD and marketing, creativity has been of longstanding interest, but has often been conceived as synonymous with innovation itself (Sundgren and Styhre,
2007). Clearer articulations disentangle the two constructs by framing creativity as an antecedent or precursor
to innovation. More particularly, creativity is said to be a
process or ability that propels and generates new ideas,
while innovation is the development and implementation
of those ideas (Amabile, 1988; Ancona, 1987; Rogers,
1983). This distinction is adopted so as not to confuse
creativity with innovation, and for consistency with
current understanding that creativity leads or is an input
to NPD, or innovation, activities (Amabile, 1988; Im and
Workman, 2004).
Curiously, in the NPD and marketing literatures, creativity has been mainly framed as an outcome; in other
words, the focus has been on what produces creativity
rather than how creativity produces innovations.
Moorman and Miner (1997) examined how organizational memory enhances the creativity of new products;
Zhou and George (2003) investigated the routes by which
emotionally intelligent leaders trigger the creativity of
individuals working on NPD projects; Tu (2009) probed
the impact of contextual factors such as organizational
control in the development of new product team creativity; Griffith-Hemans and Grover (2006) explored whether
individual and firm characteristics determine the creativity of ideas later developed into new products; and
Leenders, van Engelen, and Kratzer (2007) looked at the
influences of design methods and communications patterns on the creative performance of NPD teams. While
illuminating, these studies indicate that knowledge on
creativity as a driver of innovation is relatively nascent,
underscoring the need for this study.
The potential role of culture in creativity appears
neglected in the NPD and marketing literatures. The most
widely adopted conceptualization of creativity in NPD
research is that of Teresa Amabile (Andrews and Smith,
1996; Im and Workman, 2004; Sethi, Smith, and Park,
2001). According to Amabile (1996, p. 35), a product or
response will be judged as creative to the extent that . . .
it is both novel and appropriate, useful, correct or a valuable response to the task at hand . . . In short, creativity
is the degree to which an outcome is original and practical. This definition has shed light on a heretofore ambiguous notion (Slater, 1991; Stewart and Bennett, 1991).

112

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

Nonetheless, it emerged from research on U.S. organizations (Amabile, 1983, 1996), and may therefore not be
universally descriptive. Indicative of its limited applicability is a recent creativity study demonstrating that Japanese, Chinese, and North Americans differ greatly in their
valuations of novelty and appropriateness, the two
dimensions that constitute creativity according to
Amabile (Paletz and Peng, 2008). Additionally, metaanalyses of innovation and marketing studies indicate that
NPD processes and outcomes, where creativity is influential, are geographically and culturally dependent
(Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Wellknown research has not been conducted on creativity in a
cross-national or comparative NPD context.
An alternative view presents itself when turning to
creativity studies outside NPD and marketing. Researchers have been studying creativity from many vantage
points. Creativity has been an interdisciplinary magnet,
drawing interest from psychology, education, and art
theory among others (Runco and Robert, 1990;
Sternberg, 1999). An emergent understanding is that creativity is contextually situated and socially constructed.
Culture as an environmental element has been pointed out
as especially influential, impacting what creativity is, the
value it holds, and how it is fostered (Csikszentmihalyi,
1988; Lubart, 1990; Mannarelli, 2005). Western cultures for instance are said to emphasize creativity as
(1) observable in a tangible product, which is then judged
by others; (2) as an enterprise embarked on by individuals
for self-realization and self-expression; and (3) as a
process of breaking modalities to generate original
ideas. Eastern cultures by contrast tend to see creativity as
(1) less tangible, noting it can be a product or a personal
quality akin to enlightenment; (2) as a collaborative
endeavor where self is indistinguishable from or secondary to others; and (3) as an avenue of building upon and
honoring tradition rather than abandoning it (Lubart,
1999; Montuori and Purser, 1997; Westwood and Low,
2003).
Creativity researchers outside the NPD and marketing
disciplines warn of the dangers of assuming creativity is
culturally detached. They observe that creativity as a
concept has been heavily promoted in the West, infused
with the ideals of individualism and nonconformity
(Montuori and Purser, 1997; Niu and Sternberg, 2002;
Rudowicz and Yue, 2000). Accordingly, Edison, Michelangelo, and other creative geniuses are said to labor
alone, defying the past and known limits of art, science,
and social convention. Such standards appear useful only
in cultural isolation or exclusively within the Western
context.

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

For instance, a common Western stereotype is that

Asians are not creative. From a Western perspective,
Asians are at best incrementalists who improve on
existing designs but rarely if ever birth radically new
works, whether technological or artistic (Gardner, 1997;
Riquelme, 2002). However, studies show that Asians who
create are guided by different principles, including selfdiscipline, conformity, moral goodness, and regard for
tradition (Mannarelli, 2005; Niu and Kaufman, 2005). An
example is the Japanese ceramics master who spends
months painstakingly producing one simple clay bowl
that humbly reflects the earth it comes from, keeping with
the centuries-long practices of raku making (a style of
ceramics) where simplicity, imperfection, asymmetry,
and restraint are valued (Keene, 1969). Western standards
of ceramics making generally favor complexity, perfection, symmetry, and visual impact. Thus creativity in one
cultural setting, such as the West, may not apply to creativity in another, such as the East.
In light of the critical gap in current NPD and marketing knowledge on how creativity affects innovation, and
the understanding outside those streams that creativity is
culturally constructed, a multicultural, rather than monocultural, interpretation of creativity called cross-cultural
creativity is proposed. This may be the first such conceptualization. Specifically, it refers to the ability to generate
new ideas in ways reflective of the surrounding cultural
milieu. In the next section, the concept is further developed, in order to provide new insights on creativity for
firms engaged in global innovation projects, as well as
broaden the discourse on creativity in NPD research.
Thereafter, the concepts utility is demonstrated by
describing how cultural creativity leads to distinctive
approaches in NPD, using the Japanese and U.S. settings
as illustrations.

A Conceptualization of
Cross-Cultural Creativity
This new conceptualization accounts for different though
equally valid modes of creativity. Because notions of
creativity diverge from culture to culture, it is necessary
to avoid imposing one set of creativity ideals across all.
Hence, a conceptualization of creativity that accounts for
variation is proposed. At the outset, it should be noted
that the concept is intentionally parsimonious, a hallmark
of useful theory. When buttressed against empirical evidence in future research, the concept may be revised to
reflect greater complexity and range. The concept is
admittedly theoretical, and thus remains to be tested and
validated. Nonetheless, as with all concepts initially, it is

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

113

Table 1. Spontaneous (S) and Divergent (D) Creativity Modes: Chief Characteristics.
Spontaneous (S) Mode
Adaptiveness
Addresses creativity by making small changes, usually in process,
in order to solve a problem.
Intuitiveness
Work is done intuitively through use of instinctive yet insightful
choices to generate a product that is emotionally profound.
Process-Oriented
The problem is held constant and the procedure varied, with any
errors made in the process utilized to give room for new
procedures and resolutions; emphasis is on doing.
Metaphorism
A preference for indirectness and symbolism, leading to a
product that is figurative or suggestive in nature

based on ideas derived from existing works and insights.

Uniquely, it brings together learning from art-aesthetics
and innovation management. The approach is intentional,
in order to create a new concept that would not likely
arise out of either discipline alone.
This conceptualization of creativity is drawn from
theories of art-making by Burkhart (1960), Beittel
(1964), and Beittel and Burkhart (1963). The field of art
and aesthetics is looked to in order to derive insights on
creativity because artas process and product
essentializes creativity. It is also the realm of art and
aesthetics that actively pursues questions such as What
is creativity? and How does creativity manifest?
Burkhart (1960), Beittel (1964), and Beittel and Burkhart
(1963) describe the core modes of art-making, which are
conceptually extended to describe culturally rooted forms
of creativity.
Beittel (1964), Burkhart (1960), and Beittel and
Burkhart (1963) propose that art is produced via two
paths: spontaneous (S) and divergent (D). Both are
originative ways of working to create art, involving
goals and procedures (Beittel and Burkhart, 1963, p. 30).
The first approach has problem solving as its goal,
whereas the second has the objective of discovery. In
terms of procedure, the S approach holds the problem
constant but varies the procedure until the solution surfaces. Innovation occurs in the procedure, reflecting a
process orientation. This approach also relies on intuition
as opposed to reasoning, flexibility in the use of tools and
materials, and fluidity in the development of concepts.
Resulting works are subtle in variation and organic in
nature. In contrast, the D approach varies the goal rather
than the procedure. The process is controlled in order to
search for overtly new solutions and thus reflects a dis-

Divergent (D) Mode

Disruptiveness
Addresses creativity by making large leaps to achieve salience from
known solutions.
Rationality
Work is done through use of a conscious logic (not necessarily linear),
making the next most right feasible connection to generate a product
with intellectual appeal
Results-Oriented
The procedure is held constant and the goals vary to achieve new forms
and breakthroughs. The interest is in outcomes that are observably
fresh, with an undercurrent of pragmatism to ensure these ends.
Literalism
A preference for translating ideas directly into the product such that the
products meaning, utility, or features is apparent

covery orientation. The intuitivism of the S approach is

countered in the D route by rationalism. With rationalism
comes a precision in the development of concepts. The
strategy leads to bold and structured, instead of subtle and
organic, outcomes. The S and D strategies are analogous
to troubleshooting and inventing, respectively, with both
yielding equally original art.
These two paths are theorized to represent culturally
anchored modes of creativity: the S route is situated more
often in Eastern and other non-Western cultures, whereas
D creativity is more prevalent in the West. This is not to
say that the S mode is absent in the West or that the D
mode is nonexistent in the East, only that these are
general patterns in ways of thinking and doing (e.g.,
Hofstede, 1990; House, Javidan, Hanges, and Dorfman,
2002). The two modes are complementary, with neither
one superior nor inferior to the other: each exists and is
judged only on its own terms.1 Furthermore, studies show
that non-Western art focuses on implicit dimensions such
as intuitive ideas and open, natural, i.e., organic, forms
(corresponding with the S route), whereas Western art
favors explicit qualities such as intellectual reasoning and
visible, structured forms (corresponding with the D
approach) (e.g., Servomaa, 1997).

Spontaneous and Divergent Characteristics

The primary characteristics of each mode are now elaborated. The characteristics, which are interrelated within
each mode, are summarized in Table 1. The first characteristic is the adaptiveness of the S mode versus the dis1
While there may be other creativity paths, the two capture the key
modes. Future research can elaborate additional paths, which are likely to
be offshoots of these primary routes.

114

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

ruptiveness of the D path. Adaptiveness refers to making

small changes, usually in process, in order to solve a
problem. S creativity is adaptive in that it continuously
modifies efforts in an orderly, skilled manner until a significant development is attained, usually leading to a
product2 with nuanced perspectives. The goal is adjusting
techniques and materials to achieve originality. S creativity attempts to blend concepts together in an interdependent fashion to generate a seamlessly integrated whole
(Beittel, 1964; Beittel and Burkhart, 1963). D creativity
on the other hand is disruptive, which refers to making
large leaps to achieve salience from known solutions. It
follows unconventional paths to yield a product of contrast and distinction, or an observable break with the past
(Beittel, 1964). D creativity attempts to form unique associations of disparate elements or ideas, resulting in a
product of unexpected and dramatic vividness (Beittel,
1964; Beittel and Burkhart, 1963).
These characteristics are illustrated by comparing a
Japanese painting to an Italian painting as archetypes of
their art traditions and representative of S and D modalities, respectively. The adaptive characteristic of the Japanese painting (Figure 1a) is seen in the fluid motion of the
brush strokes, which require skillful mastery of ink,
water, and hand pressurehallmarks of traditional Zen
Buddhist art. Adaptiveness is further manifested in multiple perspectives of sky, mountain, mist, and forest
created by the shaded tones applied in a layered manner.
A holistic integration of the natural scene is achieved,
where elements such as sky and ground are barely distinct
from one another. The work, a careful synthesis of paper
with pigment, achieves a delicate view through kasure, a
Japanese technique of displaying the white scratchy
texture of the paper, melded with pigments, to create
blurred images (Xu, Tang, Lau, and Pan, 2004). In
contrast, the Italian painting (Figure 1b) shows disruptive qualities of the D approach through exaggerated
human figures and striking scenery (Silverman, Winner,
Rosensteig, and Gardner, 1975). A novel, immediately
apparent design is achieved through bold paint strokes
and vibrant color arrangements to generate visual and
emotional drama. Contrasts are achieved through the use
of shadows and illuminated figures and the unconventional juxtaposition of shapes, such as the soldiers arm in
full stabbing motion above the gentle face of a protective
mother. Both paintings are works of high creativity,
achieving ideals of beauty through different processes
and standards.
2
The term product is used generally to refer to all manner of creative
output, including in art (e.g., sculpture), engineering (e.g., bridge design),
business (e.g., a product), and science (e.g., a technology).

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

Figures 1. Japanese (Top) and Italian (Bottom) Paintings.

(a) Scenery of Mountain/Amana Images/Getty Images.
(b) Slaughter of the Innocents/Photodisc/Getty Images

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

The S and D modes exhibit other distinguishing characteristics. S creativity is process-oriented while D is
results-oriented (Beittel, 1964). Process-oriented is the
interest in varying the procedures while holding the goals
constant. In this way, any errors are utilized en route to
give room for new procedures. The emphasis is on doing
rather than achieving, such that what matters is how the
artist does the work, less so what is created at the end.
The process, if done well, is expected to yield good art.
The result is typically understated and layered in meaning
and appearance (Beittel, 1964; Burkhart, 1960). By comparison, D creativity is results-oriented, which refers to
the use of many, sometimes complex procedures that are
held constant to maintain control. What vary are the goals
to achieve new forms and breakthroughs, so the art is
observably fresh (Beittel, 1964). In a sense, there is an
undercurrent of pragmatism because what matters is
achieving something tangibly novel.
Also characterizing S creativity is that it is metaphoric,
whereas D creativity is literal. The metaphoric quality in
S creativity refers to a preference for symbolism, leading
to a product that is figurative or suggestive in nature. In
other words, the aim is to conjure loose associations and
feelings in the art observer. D creativity on the other hand
with its literal quality centers on explicitness, such that
ideas are directly translated into the product; the works
meaning, utility, and features are more apparent; and the
intention is to produce a particular thought or reaction
from the observer (Beittel, 1964; Qualley, 1970). Further,
S creativity is intuitive, which means a tendency toward
instinctive yet insightful choices to generate a product
that is emotionally profound. D creativity is by contrast
rational, which refers to the selection of right, feasible,
and reasoned choices, resulting in a product with intellectual appeal and detached precision.
The metaphoric, intuitive, and process-oriented qualities of the S mode are illustrated, in contrast to the literal,
rational, and results-oriented qualities of the D modes,
with Chinese (specifically southern Chinese) and French
gardens (Figure 2a and 2b), respectively. The two gardens
again represent cultural ideals.3
The metaphoric and intuitive characteristics are visible
in the Chinese gardens harmonious arrangement of elements, which express the yin (feminine) and yang (masculine) forces of Taoist philosophy (Rutt, 1996). Each
3
Throughout this paper, exemplars such as Chinese versus French are
used to explicate the duality of creativity, which has predominantly been
interpreted as a Western notion. As with all other culturally derived or
culturally rooted concepts, ours relies initially on observable polarities
between countries (e.g., Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1990; Triandis, 1994). It
remains for later empirical work to validate the modality or frequency of the
S and D forms by country.

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

115

element has a metaphoric meaning, and is carefully

placed in relation to another to engage the senses and
stimulate the imagination: a single rock represents a
mountain and a tree symbolizes a forest. As a visitor
walks through the garden, s/he notices few flowers, large
shapes, or bold colors. Rocks, shrubs, trees, and pebble
pathways of muted tones and textures are used instead, so
that the visitor intuits small, nuanced delights. The garden
unfolds to the visitor in a process of gradual discovery
while walking through it, such as gazing on a single fallen
leaf or meditating on pond surface reflections. The
emphasis is on providing a slow satisfying experience
rather than immediate eye-grabbing impact.
By contrast, the French garden of Versailles exhibits
rational and literal characteristics through regularity and
symmetry. Hedges are clipped or carved into perfect
shapes, and trees arranged carefully in rows and other
contours. There is a compelling rationality to the garden,
often produced through the use of clear yet complex
geometric plots and paths. The garden is also literal rather
than suggestive in that all elements reflect what they are:
trees are trees, and shrubs are shrubs. They nevertheless
convey splendor through the stunning manipulation of
nature. Shrubs for instance are shaped not as they naturally appear but as superimposed geometric forms, such
as matrices, to arrest the eye and generate marvel.
Flowers of intense and varied color are profusely grown
and strategically placed for this purpose as well, accenting areas for dramatic effect. Importantly, the gardens
entire design can be seen at one glance, as opposed to the
gradual reveal of the Chinese garden. The aim is to
achieve a sense of awe of what nature can be rather than
truly is (Keswick, 1978).

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD

Practices: Japan and the United States
It is now posited how cross-cultural creativity affects
NPD practices, as illustrated by the Japanese and U.S.
cultures. These two cultures were chosen to represent the
S and D modes of creativity. It is important to observe
that neither Japan nor the United States is likely to be
uniformly of the S or D mode. The reason is that there are
exceptions to cultural tendencies as elaborated in works
on national culture (Hofstede, 1990). Nonetheless, cultural tendencies within countries and their ties to NPD
approaches are widely acknowledged and documented
(Herbig and Jacobs, 1996; Hofstede, 1990; House et al.,
2002; Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996).
It is proposed here that cross-cultural creativity shapes
NPD practices. This relationship is elaborated by describ-

116

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

Figures 2. Chinese (Top) and French (Bottom) Gardens. (a) Garden in Suzhou, China. (b) High Angle View of a Formal Garden
in Front of Palace of Versailles, Versailles, France/Glow Images/Getty Images

ing the characteristics of each mode based on the arts and

aesthetics traditions of the two countries, and then linking
each characteristic with a distinct NPD practice. The
well-recognized NPD practices of strategy, structure,
systems, shared values, and leadership style are focused
on cultural orientations (Johne and Snelson, 1988).
Because of space constraints, the characteristics of the
creativity modes and how each influences a particular
NPD practice are described rather than all possible
effects. The creativityNPD linkages are summarized as
research propositions (see Figure 3).

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Strategy

S creativitys adaptiveness and NPD strategy. A
defining characteristic of S creativity is adaptiveness.
This characteristic can be seen in Japanese arts adherence to the principle of wabi sabi, which translates into
rustic and desolate beauty. This principle is centered on
finding beauty in imperfection and humbly accepting the
natural cycles of growth and decay (Saito, 1997). In
pursuit of wabi sabi, the artist constantly adapts to his/her
medium rather than imposes a will upon it, such that

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

117

Figure 3. Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Practices

mistakes are not put aside but integrated into the work.
In Japanese painting for example, the artist applies fluid,
spontaneous, and irregular movements, adapting the
process as s/he goes along; if a drop of paint or ink
accidentally falls from the brush, it is incorporated and
regarded as giving additional energy to the piece
(Bowie, 1952, p. 38).
The propensity toward adaptiveness may shape NPD
strategy, which refers to the specification of product and
market goals to guide NPD activities and resource allocations (Johne and Snelson, 1988). The influence is
observable in the use of m-kansei in Japanese NPD.
M-kansei is the practice of producing core technologies
that are adapted to create multiple new products
(Parthasarthy and Hammond, 2002; Tatsuno, 1989). The
heart of this approach is idea recycling (sairiyo), or
finding new uses for existing ideas. An example is
Canons development of an infrared eye-reading technology for automatic lens focusing. This technology was
embedded in a series of new cameras that varied in
styling and pricing to appeal to a wide range of customers, from lower- to higher-end segments. While the result
is 30 new camera models, each distinctive in outward
appearance, the underlying technology is the same.

D creativitys disruptiveness and NPD strategy.

Contrary to adaptiveness, the D mode displays disruptiveness, a break with the past or a reference point to birth
the new. A signature of art and aesthetics in the United
States is disruptiveness. In the aptly titled book Revolution and Tradition in American Art, art critic Baur (1967,
p. 123) asserts that American art throughout its history
conveys a revolt against circumstances. In other words,
artists attempt to defy established norms and/or insert
readily visible distinctions in their work. Paintings by
Peter Blume, Mark Rothko, and Georgia OKeefe for
instance make use of contrasting colors and figures as
well as provocative images. As illustrated by OKeefes
painting White Shell with Red, the roses swirl of dark
rich red stands in stark contradiction to the white-colored
shell, lending a hyperreality to two elements not typically
paired as subjects.
The search for disruptiveness may affect NPD strategy, as manifested by the emphasis in U.S. firms on large
innovation leaps (Rosenberg and Steinmueller, 1988). As
suggested by Mansfield (1988), U.S. companies value
and pursue disruptiveness by identifying and developing
technologies that support the creation of radically new
products. Among notable technologies is cellular tele-

118

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

phony, which AT&T developed into a prototype mobile

phone, leading later to the smart phone (King and West,
2002). Disruptiveness in NPD strategy can also be seen in
the large emphasis on basic research. Basic research is
aimed at producing fundamental gains in scientific
knowledge that are later commercially applied; while
costly and risky, it can yield large returns (Sanchez,
1996). U.S. firms have traditionally pursued and succeeded in basic research, as attested by their status as
the worlds leading patent holder for much of the
last century. Microsoft reaped such rewards when its
basic research on three-dimensional space computer
graphics allowed it to enter the game console business by
introducing the popular X-box product (Lohr, 2009).
P1a: S creativitys adaptiveness leads to preference for
an incremental, continuous improvement NPD strategy.
P1b: D creativitys disruptiveness leads to preference for
a radical, episodic, breakthrough NPD strategy.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Structure

S creativitys intuitiveness and NPD structure. A
second characteristic of S creativity is intuitiveness. An
essential aim of Japanese art is producing feelings and
connections. Reflecting this thrust is mono no aware,
which is the aesthetic sensibility to the inner vitality or
mood of things, particularly in nature (Sasaki, 2001). In
moments of mono no aware, there is a heightened awareness of the ephemeralness of beauty and life; this experience is not so much a conscious recognition as a felt
poignancy. An example of mono no aware is cherry
blossom viewing, a favorite Japanese past time and cultural rite. The experience conjures for viewers a deep-felt,
unspoken connection to nature and fellow companions; it
evokes a sad exuberance because the frail blossoms last
until the first harsh rain or strong wind (Keene, 1969;
Young and Young, 2006).
Intuitiveness perhaps shapes Japanese NPD, specifically in terms of the structures used. NPD structures are
defined as aspects of the organization chart that support
NPD activities (Johne and Snelson, 1988). Intuitiveness
may guide Japanese firms toward structures that engender
heart-felt ties, commitment, and collaboration among
participants, consistent with societal values of empathy
and interdependence (Lebra, 1976). For innovation
endeavors, Japanese companies appear to favor structures
that foster close networking among workers and lasting
commitment to the firm, such as through decentralized
units that facilitate creative thinking and actions
(Kodama, 2004; Ouchi, 1980; Sullivan and Nonaka,

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

1986). By using such approaches, it is believed that the

will and enthusiasm to overcome barriers and innovate
are strengthened, and spontaneous collaboration occurs
without resorting to formal policies and procedures
(Orihata and Watanabe, 2000).
D creativitys rationality and NPD structure. Rationality is a defining characteristic of D creativity. It involves
the selection of right, feasible, and reasoned choices to
generate a product with detached precision and intellectual appeal. This trait is exhibited in American painting
from earlier to more recent times. Art historians noted that
painters in the 18th century drew their figures with a
prodigious care, conscientiously and with a certain dry
precision . . . the prevailing tone is . . . cold . . . with the
calm, literal, depersonalized sort of report from nature
(Cortissoz, 1923, p. 110). The tendency toward precision
was carried over into 19th century art through realistic
landscape, still life, and figure paintings (Baur, 1967,
p. 104). In the next century, the American style shifted
away from realism but maintained a controlled design
logic. The result is art that is cool and detached (Cahill,
1936, p. 33).Andy Warhols famous Campbell Soup series,
with precise repeated images of the soup can painted in a
commercial, nonpainterly style, is a case in point.
Rationality may impact NPD structure in several
ways. One way is through emphasis on tasks over relationships, a distinctive trait of U.S. NPD. In U.S. firms,
complex NPD routines are broken down systematically
into well-circumscribed tasks based on the principles of
division of labor, work standardization, and group synchronization (Howell and Higgins, 1990). Work processes are explicated and supported by long flowcharts of
activities, resources, and schedules as projects evolve
(Aoki, 1986). This task-centered, project-management
tack enables efficient allocation of always limited
resources (Howell and Higgins, 1990).
The second way rationality potentially affects the
NPD structure is via a preference for formal structures
and rewards. Mintzberg (1979) observed that U.S. firms
rely on prescribed roles, responsibilities, and relationships among workers. Each employee is rewarded for
performing his (her) duties according to a specified
usually writtenjob description and within a strict
reporting bureaucracy. For instance, Hewlett-Packard at
one time developed specific procedures for how the top
5% of engineers were to be recognized and motivated
as professional elites (Leonard-Barton, 1992, p. 118).
Such explicit and institutionalized structures reduce confusion, direct actions, and coordinate the myriad NPD
tasks and participants.

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

P2a: S creativitys intuitiveness leads to a preference for

relationally centered, informal NPD structures.
P2b: D creativitys rationality leads to a preference for
task-centered, formal NPD structures.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Systems

S creativitys process orientation and NPD systems.
Along with adaptiveness and intuitiveness, S creativity
is process oriented. Japanese art emphasizes process
through geido, or a way. Flower arrangement (kado),
theater (Noh), tea ceremony (sado), pottery (yakimono),
and all other Japanese arts have unique, time-honored
procedures, which constitute the art as much as the
finished work. This emphasis means that disciplined
practice is required to reach a state of mastery and
enlightenment, if it is reached at all. In theater, the
achievement is something rare, that is attained only after
. . . decades of dedicated practice of the art (Rimer and
Masakazu, 1984, p. 73). Similarly, the martial arts of
archery and sword drawing demand endless repetition of
a handful of kata, or forms, under the firm eye of a
teacher. Practice not only enables mastery of technique
but also builds character and restraint, bridling uncomely
self-expression (Singleton, 1998).
We posit that the process orientation of S creativity
affects Japanese innovation in terms of NPD systems,
which are procedures that guide and support NPD activities and tasks (Johne and Snelson, 1988). The process
emphasis is noticeable in how Japanese companies adopt
NPD systems where the doing of innovation work, with
each phase generating learning, is valued as much as the
results of the innovation enterprise, or final product.
These systems require NPD workers to do more varied
tasks, do tasks cyclically, and do tasks differently to
problem solve, even if the time and resources expended
are greater than in tightly bound, goal-driven approach.
The assumption is that if the process is correct and done
well, a good outcome follows.
Given this process focus, Japanese firms gravitate
toward two interrelated features in their NPD systems:
concurrent and iterative phase work. Both features lead to
more open-ended yet recurring innovation activities than
in Taylorist or Fordist systems prevalent outside of Japan
(Gjerding, 2010; Nonaka, 2007). Concurrent, or overlapping, phases allow the discovery and use of emergent
learning where and when that learning is most valuable.
Japanese NPD also repeats tasks; the built-in redundancies appear wasteful but in practice permit faster, fixable,
and less costly product improvements than waiting until
the end (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Powell, 1995).

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

119

D creativitys results orientation and NPD systems.

In contrast to a primacy on process, D creativity is attentive to results. The results orientation of D creativity is
propelled by a pragmatism that aims for overt outcomes
(Beittel, 1964). Art made in the United States has been
observed to differ from work originating in Europe by its
incorporation of the practical. Black (1971, p. 7) in her
book, What is American in American Art?, quotes Alexis
de Toqueville, the famous 19th century observer of
American culture, who insightfully pointed out that
Americans habitually prefer the useful to the beautiful,
and they will require the beautiful shall be useful. Black
concludes that not much has changed since the 19th
century in that the Americans, stemming from their pragmatism, expect art to provide something of obvious
value.
Concomitant with this underlying pragmatism and in
keeping with a results orientation, U.S. artists tend toward
overt styles. Hunter (1973, p. 143) in his tome on American 20th century art concludes that . . . brilliant color and
violent handling became for a time identifying trademarks
of American painting. The advantage of an overt style is
that it not only conveys the artists vision of the world, but
also provokes a strong reaction in viewers. Specific
examples include the forceful, raw immediacy of female
paintings by William De Kooning, and the monumentalism of river murals by Craig McPherson. All marry a
bold vision with masterful technique, leaving an indelible
impression upon the viewer. Reactions can range from
loathing and disgust to fear and awe toward these pieces.
Consequently, it is theorized here that the results orientation shapes U.S. NPD systems, as evidenced by the
practical and results-driven Stage-Gate4 NPD systems
that the vast majority of U.S. firms embrace (Barczak,
Griffin, and Kahn, 2003). In Stage-Gate, successful
new products result from arranging development tasks
into phases, with each activity and stage building on the
prior in a formal sequence. Thus, idea generation leads to
concept screening, which moves into marketing research,
followed by product design and prototyping, and ending
in market testing and launch. To ensure a successful new
product at the end of the chain, results at each step are
measured against explicit goals and standards, i.e.,
benchmarks. The use of metrics enables immediate
assessment and go-no go or live-kill decisions on
projects (Sethi and Iqbal, 2008). By eliminating low
potential products early and moving forward only on high
potential ones, the system ensures progress.
4
Stage-Gate is registered trademark of the Product Development Institute, Inc.

120

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

P3a: S creativitys process orientation leads to a preference for concurrent, iterative NPD systems.
P3b: D creativitys results orientation leads to a preference for Stage-Gate, linear NPD systems.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Shared Values

and Leadership Style
S creativitys metaphorism and NPD values and leadership style. The last characteristic of S creativity is
metaphorism, or a preference for indirectness and symbolism. The Japanese aesthetic of yugen best captures this
preference. Yugen paradoxically means resistance toward
being clearly discerned. According to yugen, it is more
sublime and poetic to be suggestive. Thus, a mountain is
partially drawn in an ink painting so that the viewer can
imagine the parts that are missing and on each viewing
experience something new. Along with this indirectness
is symbolism. Bowie (1952, p. 79) comments that Japanese artists are not bound to the literal representation of
things seen. They have a canon called esarogato, which
means literally an invented picture, or a picture into
which certain fictions are painted. Symbolism is a key
feature of Japanese gardens. Gravel for instance is raked
anew each day in a pattern to represent streams and their
constantly changing nature. The garden is intended to
suggest the inner essence of things, and subordinate
reason to perception and mood.
The metaphorism of S creativity may be linked to two
Japanese NPD practices: shared values, which constitute
the organizational culture surrounding innovation activities, and leadership style, which is used to direct these
activities (Johne and Snelson, 1988). Generally, Japanese
firms have been observed to apply metaphors and metaphorical thinking in innovation projects, contrasting with
the penchant for fact and objectivity in U.S. companies
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). With respect to organizational values or culture, Japanese firms have applied
metaphors to communicate NPD team roles, such as the
artist who assists to convert images into new product
ideas, and the antique dealer who recycles old ideas for
new application (Tatsuno, 1989). Furthermore, each layer
of workers is valued and connected to others in a nurturing symbiosis. The culture is implicit in that the values of
mutual respect and interdependence are not articulated
but implied in relationships and roles (Nonaka, 1991).
The emphasis on metaphors also surfaces in the type
of leadership favored in Japanese NPD. Japanese firms
lean toward paternalistic styles in that leaders are holistically concerned with the socialization, education, and
welfare of employees (Friedlander, 1983), and root their

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

identities in these relationships (who I am to others)

rather than personal achievement (what I have done).
Japanese leaders also take their management cues from
metaphorical relationships such as teacherpupil and
masterapprentice (sempai-kohai) (Pascale and Athos,
1981).
D creativitys literalism and NPD values and
leadership style. In comparison to S creativitys
metaphorism, D creativity focuses on literalism. Under
literalism, ideas are clearly and directly translated into the
work (Beittel, 1964). This explicitness contrasts with the
veiled quality of S creativity where allusion is preferred.
U.S. art reflects literalism. Goodrich (1971, p. 16) comments that the naturalistic tradition that held sway well
into the 20th century in American artrepresented for
example by the urban realism of Thomas Eakins sculptures, paintings, and photographyshared common elements: adherence to facts, directness of vision, clarity,
solidarity. Eakins famous painting The Gross Clinic
depicts a surgical anatomy class in action with a muscular
realism and directness of vision (Simpson, 2001, p. 32).
More recently, American art has embraced abstract styles
without completely abandoning realism and naturalism.
Expressionism and minimalism are just some of these
abstract styles. They share with naturalism an unfiltered
vision, voice, or idea. As an example, Maya Lin designed
the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. by
cutting diagonal slits into the ground and fitting black
marble slabs into them with the engraved name of each
fallen soldier. The somber design powerfully conveys the
lingering and dehumanizing scar of war, and won accolades for its radical and moving departure from previous
war memorials (Mock, 1995).
The literalism of D creativity possibly influences NPD
shared values and leadership style in the U.S. context.
This connection can be observed in the preference for
explicit organizational cultures and the transactional
leadership style in U.S. firms. Explicit organizational cultures are ones where the values girding the organization
are spelled out and promulgated. Often such cultures
have formal mission statements, so that workers are
directed in day-to-day tasks by a larger purpose. Missions
are translated into strategic and tactical goals, so that
everyone knows what has to be accomplished when by
whom. The focus on literalism is also evident by the use
of transactional leadership. The role of leaders is to
provide specific performance-driven goals and assign
workers personal responsibility for achieving them
(Rohlen, 1989). The relationship between managers and
workers is clearly contractual: leaders reward workers

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

when they succeed, and punish them when they fail.

General Electric used this leadership mode to ensure a
steady output of new products in the electronics sector
(Abetti, 2006).
P4a: S creativitys metaphorism leads to a preference for
an implicit organizational culture and paternalistic leadership style in NPD.
P4b: Ds creativitys literalism leads to a preference for
an explicit organizational culture and transactional
leadership style in NPD.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the influence
of creativity on NPD practices in a cross-cultural or
global context. This aim was pursued by first developing
a conceptualization of creativity that is culturally reflective called cross-cultural creativity. Because creativity is
now recognized as socially dependent (Lubart, 1999;
Westwood and Low, 2003), the resulting conceptualization articulates how creativity varies across cultures.
Drawing on insights about creativity from the field of art
and aesthetics (e.g., Beittel and Burkhart, 1963), the
concept proposes creativity follows two paths: spontaneous (S) and divergent (D). The S path is a problemsolving approach relying on intuition, flexibility, and
fluidity to produce subtle, organic outcomes. In contrast,
the D route is a discovery approach, relying on intellectualism, control, and precision, leading to bold, structured
outcomes.
Next in this study, the concept was used to describe
how cross-cultural creativity is tied to differing
approaches to NPD, with the Japanese and U.S. settings
as exemplars. Based on the extant Japanese and U.S.
NPD literature, it was theorized how these modes alter
the key NPD practices of strategy, structure, systems, and
shared values and leadership style. These findings were
summarized as research propositions, which address the
study aim of understanding how creativity shapes NPD in
a global or cross-cultural context.

Managerial Implications
For managers, these findings have several implications.
One implication is that cultural sensitivity is required to
manage the NPD process for optimal outcomes. Previous
studies, including meta-analyses, have empirically demonstrated that culture affects the innovation enterprise
(e.g., Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Song and Parry,
1997b). This study is perhaps the first to propose the more

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

121

specific linkage between culturally based creativity and

the development of new products. A new bimodal framework for creativity is posited that accounts for current
understanding that creativity is socially construed and
follows differing patterns, contrasting between Western
and non-Western cultures (Lubart, 1999; Niu and
Kaufman, 2005; Paletz and Peng, 2008).
In terms of greater cultural sensitivity, this study suggests firms harness creativity for global innovation purposes employing a variety of managerial approaches. The
reason is that what is interpreted as new, useful, good,
artistic, even beautiful is intrinsically tied to the culture
that produces it. The approach selected and used has to
account for distinctions not only in the new product features desired, but also in terms of the strategy, structure,
systems, values, and leadership style applied to the new
product project.
Most obviously, the solution is to match the creativity
concept and NPD practices with the appropriate culture.
Within an Eastern or non-Western setting, those would
more likely be the S concept and NPD practices such as
a more incremental strategy, relational informal structure,
and iterative development process. Conversely, within a
Western environment, the D concept should be embraced,
along with practices such as a more radical strategy, taskcentered formal structure, and a linear development
sequence. Landing on the right mode becomes particularly challenging when multiple cultures are involved in
creating a new product, as is increasingly the case in
global NPD teams.
This recognition leads to the second managerial implication and less obvious solution, namely intentionally
seeking divergent creativity modes and selecting aspects
of the two to develop a third way for NPD. A truly
multinational company with personnel and markets
around the world may find it beneficial to combine
aspects of the S and D modes to construct new NPD
practices that draw on complementary strengths or
mitigate different weaknesses. An example of this is
modifying Stage-Gate by allowing flexibly cycling
back through stages to capitalize on learning and errors
along the way (Cooper, 2008; Sethi and Iqbal, 2008).
Such modified forms bridge the two worlds of creativity,
no longer positioning them as dichotomous, either-or
choices.
Another way to tap into both creative modes is to make
adjustments in NPD practices on a project basis. Teams
assigned to NPD projects can shift between the two orientations as a function of the needs of the project. Thus,
Project A is guided using the S creativity mode and practices and Project B by the D perspective and approaches.

122

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

This is more possible if the teams are themselves multicultural, and leaders are chosen according to the creativity orientation desired. Project A in the above case could
be spearheaded by the member from China, and Project B
by the French member. Over time, the result would be a
creative fertility: an ability to appreciate different cultural
points of view and possibilities so that the most valuable
path can be selected, resulting in market appropriate new
products. This flexibility in application of creativity orientations is especially relevant for firms with large global
portfolios of NPD projects.
A third path is one that rests on the emergent pattern of
multinational firms leveraging the cultural skills of what
are known as biculturals, or individuals who have deep
familiarity with more than one culture because of varied
life experiences and/or being born into a multicultural
family. A person who is, say, a child of a Vietnamese
mother and American father, and has lived for a time in
both countries, is able to switch back and forth between
the two cultural frames. Firms are intentionally seeking
bicultural staff because they offer the unique ability to
appreciate fully and function adaptively in two or more
cultural worlds (Brannen, 2009; Briley, 2009). In NPD
activities, biculturals may be employed specifically for
their cultural knowledge, including tapping into multiple
creativity forms.

Research Implications
While the cross-cultural creativity concept presented here
is intended to be descriptive of many cultures, it was
examined hypothetically in relation to two, the Japanese
and U.S. Future work is needed to understand the applicability of the creativity concept to other cultures. Furthermore, Western or Eastern cultures are not entirely
homogenous because of subcultures within them. For
instance, the national culture of India is composed of over
20 subcultures and languages. As has long been understood, national culture constructs are large social aggregates not descriptive of all social units (Hofstede, 1990).
Therefore, a future step is exploring to what degree and
ways the new creativity concept encompasses smaller,
lower level social units. Findings can be used to expand
the concept for other levels of social analysis.
It is acknowledged that what is presented here is a
simplified picture of creativity, culture, and NPD for
theoretical purposes, done so to explicate and highlight
their linkages. However, organizations are complex entities, residing within dynamic and multifaceted environments. Studies in the future can investigate conditions
and factors likely to impact elements of this study. For

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

instance, transculturea force and sphere transcending

the borders of ethnic, national, racial, and religious
culturesmay alter the emphases of a creativity mode
(Epstein, 2009). Studies conducted on transculture may
help to identify important contingencies in the creativity
NPD relationship.
Along with such macro factors, individual- and grouplevel variables can be studied for influence on creativity
and innovation efforts. Creativity has been studied extensively as an individual psychological construct (e.g.,
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). It would be worthwhile
researching the influence of individual creativity, perhaps
as a moderator or mediator of cross-cultural creativity, on
NPD processes and outcomes. Relatedly, group-level
effects would be interesting to understand. Previous
research has pointed to group- or team-level factors such
as demographic diversity enhancing creativity under
certain conditions (Milliken, Bartel, and Kurtzberg,
2003). These factors may have curvilinear effects because
excessive diversity is deleterious, producing conflict and
undermining creativity (De Luca and Atuahene-Gima,
2007; White, Varadarajan, and Dacin, 2003).
Another line of inquiry is to investigate the shaping
force of culture on creativity. The proposed concept in
this study incorporates both constructs into a single one
called cross-cultural creativity, but it may be interesting
to see if culture as a separate entity impacts creativity.
Among culture paradigms that could be studied in relation to creativity, the most obvious is Hofstedes national
culture dimensions (1990); however, others that captures
cultures more fluid naturequalities increasingly recognized in a more interdependent and globalizing world
include Brileys dynamic view of culture (2009) and Liu
and Dales shared cultural cognitions (2009).
The next most evident step is empiricization of the
cross-cultural creativity concept and NPD practices
propositions. While surveys have been typically
employed for cross-cultural marketing and innovation
studies, other methods can be fruitfully applied, particularly ethnographic, qualitative methods. As noted by
Clark (1990) in his review of the literature, qualitative
tools can yield theoretical developments on critical global
marketing issues.
In this study, a new culturally anchored creativity conceptualization is developed and applied to NPD.
Although empirical research is needed before definitive
conclusions can be drawn, the concept helps us to understand that creativity is culturally attached and impacts
innovation practices. In this regard, a gap in the NPD and
marketing literatures is addressed, literatures which have
by and large assumed creativity is culturally neutral and

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

thus affects NPD in uniform ways regardless of geography (Amabile, 1988). This interpretation is less useful for
todays global new product efforts, in which products are
conceived and designed by persons in places far more
varied than in the past. The hope is to have delineated a
new and fertile area of knowledge, triggering critical
discourse in innovation.

References
Abetti, P. A. 2006. Case study: Jack Welchs creative revolutionary transformation of general electric and the Thermidorean reaction (19812004). Creativity and Innovation Management 15 (1): 7484.

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

123

Cooper, R. G. 2008. The Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process update,

whats new, and nextgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (3): 21332.
Cortissoz, R. 1923. American artists. New York: C. Scribners Sons.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. The flow experience and human psychology. In
Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness,
ed. M. Csikszentmihalyi and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi, 1535. New York:
University of Cambridge Press.
De Luca, L. M., and K. Atuahene-Gima. 2007. Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different
routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing 71
(January): 95112.
Epstein, M. 2009. Transculture: A broad way between globalism and multiculturalism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 68
(January): 32851.

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45
(August): 35776.

Friedlander, F. 1983. Patterns of individual and organizational learning.

In The executive mind: New insights on managerial thought and
action, ed. S. Shrivastava and Associates. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.

In Research in organizational behavior, ed. B. M. Staw and L.
Cummings, 12367. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gardner, H. 1997. Extraordinary minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional individuals and an examination of our own extraordinariness. New York:
Basic Books.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Gjerding, A. N. 2010. Work organization and the innovation design

dilemma. In National systems of innovation, ed. B. Luvall, 99118.
London: Anthem Press.

Ancona, D. G. 1987. Groups in organization: Extending laboratory models.

In Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group processes and intergroup processes, ed. C. Hendrick, 20731. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Andrews, J., and D. C. Smith. 1996. In search of the marketing imagination:
Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for the mature
products. Journal of Marketing Research 33: 17487.
Aoki, M. 1986. Horizontal vs. vertical information structure of the firm.
American Economic Review 75: 171983.
Barczak, G., A. Griffin, and K. B. Kahn. 2003. Perspective: Trends and
drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of 2003 PDMA best
practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 323.
Baur, J. I. 1967. Revolution and tradition in modern American art. New
York: F. A. Praeger.
Beittel, K. R. 1964. On the relationships between art and general creativity:
A biased history and projection of the partial conquest. School Review
72: 27288.
Beittel, K. R., and R. C. Burkhart. 1963. Strategies of spontaneous, divergent and academic art students. Studies in Art Education 5 (Autumn):
2041.
Black, M. 1971. What is American in American art? New York: M.
Knoedler & Co.
Bowie, H. P. 1952. On the laws of Japanese painting. New York: Dover
Publications.
Brannen, M. 2009. Culture in context: New theorizing for todays complex
cultural organizations. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for
global marketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 81100. London:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Briley, D. 2009. Cultural influence on consumer motivations: A
dynamic view. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global
marketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 181200. London:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Burkhart, R. C. 1960. The creativity-personality continuum based on spontaneity and deliberateness in art. Studies in Art Education 2 (Fall):
4365.
Business Week. 2008. 25 most innovative companies: Smart ideas for tough
times. Business Week, 4081, p. 61.
Cahill, H. 1936. New horizons in American art. New York: The Museum of
Modern Art.
Clark, T. 1990. International marketing and national character: A review
and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing 67: 123
69.

Goodrich, L. 1971. Introduction. In What is American art?, ed. M. Black,

16. New York: M. Knoedler & Company.
Griffith-Hemans, J., and R. Grover. 2006. Setting the stage for creative new
products: Investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 34 (1): 2739.
Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Henard, D. H., and D. M. Szymanski. 2001. Why some new products are
more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research 38:
(August): 36275.
Herbig, P., and L. Jacobs. 1996. Creative problem-solving styles in the USA
and Japan. International Marketing Review 13 (2): 6371.
Hofstede, G. 1990. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
London: McGraw-Hill.
House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. Understanding
cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37 (1): 310.
Howell, J. M., and C. A. Higgins. 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 31741.
Hunter, S. 1973. American art of the 20th century. New York: H. N.
Abrams.
Im, S., and J. P. Workman. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and new
product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing
68: (April): 11432.
Johne, A. F., and P. A. Snelson. 1988. Success factors in product innovation:
A selective review of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 5: 11428.
Keene, D. 1969. Japanese aesthetics. Philosophy East and West 19 (3):
29306.
Keswick, M. 1978. The Chinese garden: History, art and architecture.
Hong Kong: Rizzolli.
King, J. L., and J. West. 2002. Ma Bells orphan: U.S. cellular telephony,
1947-1996. Telecommunications Policy 26 (3): 189203.
Kirca, A. H., S. Jayachandran, and W. O. Bearden. 2005. Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and
impact on performance. Journal of Marketing 69 (April): 2441.
Kodama, M. 2004. Business innovation through strategic community creation: A case study of multimedia business field in Japan. Journal of
Business Engineering and Technology Management 21 (September):
21535.

124

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA

Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of

Hawaii Press.

Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative

Science Quarterly 25: 12941.

Leenders, R. T. A. J., J. M. L. V. Engelen, and J. Kratzer. 2007. Systematic

design methods and the creative performance of new product teams: Do
they contradict or complement each other? Journal of Product Innovation and Management 24: 16679.

Paletz, S. B. F., and K. Peng. 2008. Implicit theories of creativity across

cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (3): 286302.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox

in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal
13 (Summer): 11125.
Liu, L. A., and C. Dale. 2009. Using mental models to study cross-cultural
interactions. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global
marketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 22246. London:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Lohr, S. 2009. Smartphone rises fast from gadget to necessity. New York
Times Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/
10phone.html.
Lubart, T. I. 1990. Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International
Journal of Psychology 25: 3959.
Lubart, T. I. 1999. Creativity across cultures. In Handbook of creativity, ed.
R. J. Sternberg, 33950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mannarelli, T. 2005. New visions of Asian management in the 21st century:
A call for creativity. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Meetings, August, Honolulu, Asian Academy of
Management Professional Development Workshop Project Roundtable
Discussion.
Mansfield, E. 1988. Industrial innovation in Japan and the United States.
Science 30 (September): 176974.
Milliken, F. J., C. A. Bartel, and T. Kurtzberg. 2003. Diversity and creativity
in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive
processes that link diversity and performance. In Group creativity, ed.
P. Paulus and B. Nijstad, 3262. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mintzberg, H. 1979. An emerging strategy of direct research. Administrative Science Quarterly Qualitative Methodology, 24 (December):
58289.
Mock, F. L. 1995. Maya lin: A strong clear vision. Santa Monica, CA:
Sanders and Mock/American Film Foundation.
Montuori, A., and R. Purser. 1997. Social creativity: The challenge of
complexity. Pluriverso 1 (2): 7888.
Moorman, C., and A. S. Miner. 1997. The impact of organizational memory
on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing
Research 34 (February): 91106.
Nakata, C., and K. Sivakumar. 1996. National culture and new product
development: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing 60 (1):
6172.
Niu, W., and J. Kaufman. 2005. Creativity in troubled times: Factors associated with recognitions of Chinese literary creativity in the 20th
century. Journal of Creative Behavior 39 (1): 5767.
Niu, W., and R. J. Sternberg. 2002. Contemporary studies on the concept of
creativity: The East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior 36:
26988.
Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business
Review: 96104.
Nonaka, I., and N. Konno. 1998. The concept of Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. Californian Management Review 40:
115.
Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creating company.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. R. 2007. Do firms differ? The theory of the knowledge creating
firm. In Knowledge creation and management, ed. K. I. Ichiro and
I. Nonaka, 1331. London: Oxford University Press.
Orihata, M., and C. Watanabe. 2000. Evolutionary dynamics of product
innovation: The case of consumer electronics. Technovation 20 (8):
43749.

Parthasarthy, R., and J. Hammond. 2002. Product innovation input and

outcome: Moderating effects of the innovation process. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management 19: 7591.
Pascale, R. T., and A. G. Athos. 1981. The art of Japanese management.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Powell, T. 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: A
review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal 16
(January): 1537.
Qualley, C. A. 1970. A comparison of spontaneous and divergent strategies to historical analyses of style. Studies in Art Education 12 (1):
1724.
Rimer, J. T., and Y. Masakazu. 1984. On the art of the Noh drama: The
major treatises of Zeami. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Riquelme, H. 2002. Creative imagery in the East and West. Creativity
Research Journal 14: 28182.
Rogers, C. R. 1983. Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Charles
E. Merrill.
Rohlen, T. P. 1989. Order in Japanese society: Attachment, authority, and
routine. Journal of Japanese Studies 15: 540.
Rosenberg, N., and E. W. Steinmueller. 1988. Why are Americans such
poor imitators? American Economic Review 78 (2): 22935.
Rudowicz, E., and X. Yue. 2000. Concepts of creativity: Similarities and
differences among Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese.
Journal of Creative Behavior 34 (July): 17592.
Runco, M. A., and A. S. Robert, eds. 1990. Theories of creativity. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Rutt, R. 1996. The book of changes (Zhouyi): A Bronze Age document.
Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.
Saito, Y. 1997. The Japanese aesthetics of imperfection and insufficiency.
The Journal Of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (4): 37785.
Sanchez, R. 1996. Strategic product creation: Managing new interactions of
technology, markets, and organizations. European Management
Journal 14 (2): 12139.
Sasaki, K. 2001. Style in Japanese aesthetics: Onishi,Yoshinori. In A history
of modern Japanese aesthetics, ed. M. Marra, 11540. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Servomaa, S. 1997. Sounds of stone; Reflections in art. Proceedings of the
Pacific Rim Conference in Transcultural Aesthetics, University of
Sydney, June 18-20.
Sethi, R., and Z. Iqbal. 2008. Stage-Gate controls, learning failure,
and adverse effects on new products. Journal of Marketing 72 (1):
11836.
Sethi, R., D. C. Smith, and C. W. Park. 2001. Cross-functional product
development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer
products. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (February): 7385.
Silverman, J., E. Winner, A. Rosensteig, and H. Gardner. 1975. On training
sensitivity to painting styles. Perception 4: 37384.
Simpson, M. 2001. Thomas Eakins. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of
Art.
Singleton, J. 1998. Learning in likely places: Varieties of apprenticeship in
Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slater, P. 1991. A dream deferred. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Song, X. M., and M. E. Parry. 1997a. The determinants of Japanese new
product successes. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (1): 6476.
Song, X. M., and M. E. Parry. 1997b. A cross-national comparative study of
new product development processes: Japan and the United States.
Journal of Marketing 61 (2): 118.

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY

Song, X. M., J. Xie, and B. Dyer. 2000. Antecedents and consequences of

marketing managers conflict handling behaviors. Journal of Marketing
64: 5066.
Sternberg, R. J., ed. 1999. Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge
University.
Stewart, E. C., and J. M. Bennett. 1991. American cultural patterns. Dartmouth: Intercultural Press.
Sullivan, J. J., and I. Nonaka. 1986. The application of organizational
learning theory to Japanese and American management. Journal of
International Business Studies 17: 12747.
Sundgren, M., and A. Styhre. 2007. Creativity and the fallacy of misplaced
concreteness in new drug development. European Journal of Innovation Management 10 (2): 21535.
Tatsuno, S. 1989. Created in Japan: From imitators to world class innovators. New York: Harper and Row.
Triandis, H. C. 1994. Culture and social behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tu, W. 2009. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing creativity in
NPD teams. Journal of Industrial Marketing Management 28 (1): 119
26.

J PROD INNOV MANAG

2013;30(S1):110125

125

Vissers, G., and B. Dankbaar. 2002. Creativity in multidisciplinary new

product development teams. Creativity and Innovation Management 11
(1): 3139.
Von Krogh, G., I. Nonaka, and A. Manfried. 2001. Making the most of your
companys knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Planning
34 (4): 42139.
Westwood, R., and D. R. Low. 2003. The multicultural muse. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management 3: 23559.
White, J. C., P. R. Varadarajan, and P. A. Dacin. 2003. Market situation
interpretation and response: The role of cognitive style, organizational
culture, and information use. Journal of Marketing 67 (3): 6379.
Xu, S., F. Tang, F. C. M. Lau, and Y. Pan. 2004. Virtual hairy brush for
painterly rendering. Graphical Models 66 (5): 263302.
Yadav, M. S. 2010. The decline of conceptual articles and implications for
knowledge development. Journal of Marketing 74 (1): 119.
Young, D., and M. Young. 2006. Spontaneity in Japanese art and culture.
Available at: http://japaneseaesthetics.com
Zhou, J., and J. M. George. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role
of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly 14: 54568.