The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Creativity and
Creativity, planning planning
and organizational change
C.M.J. van Woerkum and M.N.C. Aarts
Communication Management Group, Wageningen University, 847
Wageningen, The Netherlands, and
K. de Grip
Ministry of Internal Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the relationship between creativity and planning
perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach – Creativity is considered to be the source of new and competitive
ideas through which an organization positions itself in its environment. A distinction is made between
means-end planning and emerging alternative approaches to planning. It is argued that in means-end
planning schemes creativity is predominantly a problem solving activity seeking to find an ideal mix
of instruments to meet a clearly stated goal.
Findings – Demonstrates that creativity can be much more if other perspectives on planning are
accepted. A broadened concept of creativity is presented, pointing to strategic devices that promote
and facilitate creativity in an organization.
Originality/value – Is of value by stressing that “being creative” should be a part of an
organization’s everyday experiences, a component of normal meetings, and a reality for all members of
an organization.
Keywords Organizational change, Organizational planning, Corporate strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
Planning is widely considered to be related to goal setting and finding the means to
achieve these goals. Goals must be formulated as clearly as possible. Means must be
selected in an accountable way – that is, an outsider-expert is able to trace and accept
the strategic arguments, and the planning can be later evaluated.
However, such a perspective on planning is restricted and contested. Vast amounts
of literature address the pitfalls of this planning ideal (Argyris, 1994; Mintzberg, 1994;
Pepper, 1995; Dörner, 1997; Ashmos et al., 2000). The basic idea behind much of the
criticism is that means-end planning overrates predictability. The world, critics argue,
is too dynamic and complex to fit neatly within the boundaries of even the most
elaborate means-end planning. We must find other ways to organize and control our
activities. Over the past 20 years, many scholars have been challenged to develop
alternative planning models.
In this paper, we focus on one aspect of alternative planning models: the function
and use of creativity. Creativity is the source of new and competitive ideas, through Journal of Organizational Change
which an organization positions itself within its environment. In rapidly changing Management
Vol. 20 No. 6, 2007
conditions organizations must meet the challenge of being “capable of creating pp. 847-865
tomorrow’s business while maintaining today’s.” (Hurst et al., 1996, p. 381). The q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
prerequisite is to make existing procedures as efficient as possible, lowering the costs DOI 10.1108/09534810710831055
JOCM at all levels while simultaneously creating new ideas for products or processes in the
20,6 future. Emphasizing the first point – cost reduction – can deliver significant profit in
the short-term but fails to recognize future needs. Clearly, there is a quest for
innovation.
However, if we accept the idea of multiple dependencies of organizations vis-à-vis
their environment, this obligation to innovate for the future is an appealing one. We
848 need to recognize the influence of future markets, governmental policies, technological
opportunities, competitor strategies, media coverage of the firm’s performance on
social and environmental issues, and stock market tendencies. How can one adapt to
the wide array of influencing factors that constitute a contemporary company’s
biotope? The driving motive is obvious. Those that best adapt will grow and flourish,
those that fail to adequately renew themselves will decline or die. Innovation is a
prerequisite:
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it
widely through the organization, and quickly flesh out the knowledge with new technologies
and products. These activities characterize the “knowledge-creating” company whose sole
business is continuous innovation (Nonaka, 1996, p. 18).
This change must be planned. However, planning as such cannot deliver these ideas.
By its stress on ex ante and ex post evaluation, planning can only prevent the
application of wrong ideas. Therefore, planning needs creativity as a counterpart in
order to guarantee results. And, of course, the reverse is also true: without planning,
many creative ideas will not be effectively exploited.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that ideas about creativity and its use are
connected with perspectives on planning. In line with this we will argue that
new concepts of planning give rise to new thinking about creativity, which may
enhance the capacity for organizational innovation. In so doing, we will try to balance
new ideas about planning with new ideas about creativity, demonstrating how the
benefits build a better fit with a dynamic world.
We will start with a short description of two fundamentally different perspectives
on planning. We assume that alternative planning approaches to strictly means-end
thinking, should not be viewed as anti-planning, but rather as new and reasonable
methods for planning in particular situations.
Next, we will consider creativity in different models of planning and change. In the
means-end planning scheme using creativity is mainly a problem solving activity – to
find the ideal mix of instruments needed in order to meet a clearly stated goal. We will
demonstrate that creativity can be much more if we accept other ideas about planning.
Finally, we will make this broadened concept of creativity more explicit, outlining
strategic devices to promote and facilitate creativity in an organization.

2. Means-end planning and its alternatives

Simply stated, “planning” is the act of formulating a program for a certain course of
action. It is conscious behavior meant to prescribe the steps required in order to arrive
at a desired state.
Means-end planning is an attempt to rationalize this process. This encompasses
both clear measurable objectives that make it possible to assess the results of actions
precisely, and a carefully designed set of instruments that may produce these results.
 As stated earlier, a body of literature on the restrictions of means-end planning Creativity and
already exists. For our discussion, we focus on the main themes. planning
A basic problem seems to lie in the assumption of predictability. In a world that is
inherently complex and dynamic, this assumption is disputed by many authors
(Hoogerwerf and Poorthuis, 2002; Ford and Ogilvie, 1996; Ashmos et al., 2000). With
this in mind, the rationality of means-end planning may well be questionable in many
contexts because: 849
.
a complete overview of the planning situation is impossible;
.
owing to the synergy between small and large developments the situation is
continuously and sometimes dramatically changing; and
.
other actors (i.e. competing organizations, governments, NGOs) react to these
changes in unforeseeable ways.

However, it is not only the external environment that is difficult to survey. Inter-human
processes within an organization, shaped by emotions, norms or values, have dynamic
properties which are difficult to grasp and are even more difficult to “steer”
(Doorewaard and Benschop, 2002; Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001). This
exacerbates doubts about predictability: how do we know if we can adapt ourselves
properly? We can further rationalize and refine our planning activities. But is that
enough?
This problem relates to salient questions about the guiding power of a written plan.
A plan must steer actions but in practice, “the plan is never the sole focus of orientation
for our action” (Joas, 1996, p. 161). Priorities are influenced by norms that are socially
constructed in our daily encounters. The reality of organizational life, consisting of
both vertical and horizontal interactions, is different from the reality that planners
perceive or imagine. Many planners tend to neglect the “discursive, interpretive,
communal nature of organizational life” (Addleson, 1996) in which priorities and
purposes are developed in continuous interaction.
This not only applies for rank-and-file members of an organization, even planners
themselves fail to act solely based on their carefully constructed plans. As Mintzberg
and Quin (1991) demonstrated, managers tend to have verbal orientations; they act and
react on the basis of an uninterrupted stream of ad hoc verbal contacts. We can
conclude that managers are action-oriented more than reflective, and that actions are
daily outcomes or results.
In past editions of the journal Organizational Change authors who are active in
fields such as chaos theory (Lichtenstein, 2000), contingency theory (Ashmos et al.,
2000) or learning organizations theory (Ford and Ogilvie, 1996; Bierly et al., 2000) have
discussed alternatives. These authors consider the need (throughout the whole
organization) for flexibility and attunement to the environment – including manifold
linkages to different stakeholder groups – in order to guarantee quick and relevant
responses. From various backgrounds, organizations are studied with the aim of
finding ways to deal with chaos, complexity and unpredictability. The learning
organization perspective, described by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995, in: Porth et al., 1999)
as “an inclusive approach to planning which brings in new voices, new perspectives
and new energy to the process.” This perspective is considered to be of high
importance in this context as it builds the capacity to change strategies, be creative,
and to avoid a narrow and rigid dependence on the status quo (Anderson, 1997,
JOCM in: Porth et al., 1999). We want to stress the growing attention for chaos, complexity
20,6 and unpredictability.
Another perspective we advocate is the interpretive view, a reaction against the
traditional system-structural view. The interpretive view holds that “information is
meaningless in the absence of organizational actors’ interpretations” (Ford and Ogilvie,
1996, p. 55). The environment of organizations is fundamentally ambiguous and cannot
850 be reduced by information per se. All “certainties” are socially constructed and open to
interpretation. The goal of management teams must be “to create and communicate
meanings which serve as the basis of subsequent action” (Giola and Chittipeddi, in:
Ford and Ogilvie, 1996, p. 57). These actions, however, are not to be seen as
implementation, but rather as learning trajectories in themselves. Many authors
promote experimentation that is guided by a clear sense of direction (instead of fixed
objectives). This sense of direction should be a general concern kept lively by
continuous internal discussion. It is not possible to “sink” a goal into an organization.
Such mechanical thinking about human change is increasingly replaced by more
sophisticated ideas in which interaction and participation are prerequisites.
We have grouped proposals emerging for different planning practices under the
label “alternative approaches to planning” – referring to alternatives to the means-end
planning addressed earlier. With this we combine a set of strategic ideas. We elicit
these ideas using Whittington’s (2001) well-known typology. In addition to what he
calls the “classical approach” (our means-end planning) he sees three other
perspectives.
The first is the evolutionary approach. Some authors depict this approach as
Darwinistic (Marion, 1999; Stacey et al., 2000). Of all species mutations some match
better than others with the characteristics of a (new) environment. Individuals with
specific mutations survive, others disappear. To improve chances for survival, a
species creates differences – the more differences, the better.
Whittington is somewhat pessimistic about the room for strategy and planning in
the evolutionary approach. Citing Williamson (1991, p. 19), he reiterates: “Economy is
the best strategy.” Efficiency and reduction of transaction costs are most important.
However, Williamson sees opportunities for new technologies, for example, the Sony
Walkman of the 1980s with more than 160 versions launched in the American market.
In this case, the environment makes the selections, rather than the managers.
Customers, when asked about their willingness to pay for a new technology are “unable
to articulate their future needs” (Tidd et al., 2001, p. 193). Only practice can do this.
We take a more optimistic view regarding the merits of the evolutionary approach.
In an unpredictable environment differences must be fostered in order to create new
fits. This is true for both products and services. Of course, the random variation of the
plant and animal world is not an appropriate comparison. Humankind differentiates
both contextually and strategically (Gabora, 2000). To deal with the unpredictability of
consumer reactions requires market differentiation. Opportunities for differentiation
vary enormously (e.g. a publishing company versus a car manufacturer). But in many
situations more experimentation is advisable, then an evaluation of the results can be
done and next steps considered. The success of Honda in its fight against Yamaha is
one of the most cited examples in this realm (Stark, 1992). In the “variety war” Honda
introduced or replaced 113 motorcycle models in order to assess the latest trends in
consumer preferences.
 However, it is not only at the product or service level where differences matter. Creativity and
Information identified as being useful for the development of new products or for the planning
operational tasks of an organization can also express varying degrees of heterogeneity.
A rich, multi-dimensional information system is geared more towards complex,
dynamic environments. Likewise, a productive organizational culture can be seen as
one in which the use of different perspectives regarding organizational dimensions
(financial, social, cultural, psychological, legal, political, etc.) is rewarded. 851
This calls for an internal communication system wherein the contributions of all
members of an organization are taken into account, from the specialists of industrial
engineering to sales people, public relations (PR) officers and telephone receptionists.
They can all “make a difference” and are useful in getting an adaptive response to
emerging requirements. Of course, more differentiation can mean a lack of coordination
and control (Galbraith, 1996). Balancing these elements is a new challenge for
innovative organizations.
The second approach Whittington mentions is the processual approach
emphasizing the restrictions of human cognition. People are “boundedly rational”
(March and Simon, 1958). They are incapable of processing all available information
(choice of information is in itself a selection). The environment is basically
“unknowable.” Within an organization, members grapple with combining cognitive
biases and personal objectives.
The rationale for planning is that by “cautious comparison of successful options
and careful maintenance of consensus” (Whittington, 2001, p. 23) an organization can
be adapted to its environment – a process of “logical incrementalization” – based on
experimentation and learning. The process may be informed by a “strategic intent
broad enough to allow flexibility and opportunism . . . ” (Whittington, 2001, p. 24). The
relationship between thinking and acting is reciprocal. People act according to ideas
about how they can best act and reflect on the outcomes of their activities.
The third approach we consider is the systemic perspective, stressing cultural
dimensions within an organization and in broader society. People are not perfect
profit maximizers but act according to social values and norms specific to their
context (Pepper, 1995). This could explain the different planning cultures evident in
different countries. In multi-/trans-national companies sociological sensitivity must be
used when planning and implementing new strategies.
These three alternative approaches to planning serve as our framework within which
we develop our ideas about creativity. Like Whittington, we consider the processual
approach as the most distinctive alternative to means-end planning, though we also note
that differentiation and experimentation (drawn from the evolutionary approach) and
cultural dimensions (from the systemic approach) must be considered. As previously
stated, means-end thinking relates to finding new tools or instruments for problem
solving creativity. The salient question remains: if we take an alternative – where might
we end up?

3. Creativity
Creativity is the ability to generate novel ideas that are useful at a given moment. With
this simple definition we include several elements.
Firstly, the notion of novelty. We look at novelty as a phenomenon in everyday life
rather than the novelty of an outstanding artist or scientist. Anyone can be creative
JOCM and indeed must be creative in order to cope with his/her environment. We do not go so
20,6 far as to declare that the vast majority of our everyday utterances are creative in that
they form new combinations of words and/or meanings never before expressed ( Joas,
1996). For us, novel phrases must contain an element of surprise for recipients, which
deviate from what is expected. However, our scope is broad and “democratic.” Nobody
is excluded from creative processes. We can, however, learn from the artistic domain,
852 as will be elaborated later in this paper.
Usefulness is a second element in our definition so as to avoid the random novelties
such as computer-generated nonsense or the incoherent wails of a drunken sailor. This
element refers not only to the practical or material, but also to new ways of describing
reality or new evaluations that may also be very useful. The people involved determine
the degree of utility.
The value of creativity is not necessarily long term. Creativity can be the product of
an activity (individual, social) that is temporarily valuable for individuals or groups,
but that might later be replaced by other and possibly better ideas.
By describing creativity as “socially useful” and “of temporal use” we do not
necessarily put a positive label on the creative product. Some ideas are not seen as
novel or useful in original social context in which they appear. It may well be later that
they are recognized as being “good.” Other ideas are labeled as “creative,” but in the
long-term turn out to have been totally wrong or even harmful. Creativity is in the
present – what people think now, for better or for worse.
Both individuals and groups can be creative. What is the relationship between
group and individual creativity? In later sections, we consider the social context of
creative processes. At this point, we take a position on the perspective that “the
individual is the source of freedom while the social is the source of constraints and
limitations” as being over simplistic (Wenger, 1998). We know that individual
creativity is a social product, based on common language and on many encounters that
mould a richness of experience that is inherited from a social environment (Elias, 1939;
Goudsblom, 2001). There is no such a thing as an autonomous individual, who is
isolated from their social environment. Yet at the same time, the social encounter
between individuals can (not will) enhance the creative process, depending on how
these encounters are arranged. A key point is the willingness of groups to value
individual contributions as an obvious way to create new and different ideas. Friedman
uses the term “individuation” to describe this process. “Individuation in a group exists
when members are encouraged to attend to, value, express, and regulate their internal
states and behavior” (Friedman, 1984, p. 14). The relationship between organizations
and individuals is also explained by Antonacopoulou and Gabriel (2001) who argue
that organizational change forces individuals to come face-to-face with their ignorance
and vulnerability which can stimulate innovation, growth and creativity
(Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001, p. 446).

4. Views on planning in relation to creativity

Much of the literature on creativity is related to problem solving. This approach frames
teaching children “creativity” as getting them to solve puzzles that train them to define
the problem properly and look at different solutions, etc. Valuable as this approach
may be, its usefulness is restricted. According to De Bono, this approach is related to a
western (at least – in his words – a US) tendency to see all thinking as problem solving
(De Bono, 2000). For us, the relationship between a creative approach and the idea of Creativity and
means-end planning is interesting. Indeed, to get the ideal mix of means toward a
stated objective, is a form of problem solving. Many creative devices – whether for
planning
divergent creativity to broaden the scope of possible means, or for convergent
creativity to construct effective combinations – are derived from mainstream –
thinking on creativity that depends on the means-end planning model. However, as we
saw, other planning perspectives do exist. We summarize key elements and then 853
continue with another interpretation of creativity that better reflects these alternative
planning perspectives. As stated earlier, these alternative approaches towards planning
are more appropriate in complex, dynamic environments in which means-end planning
shows serious shortcomings. We will demonstrate the meaning of this for creativity,
especially for it to be fully exploited.
On the basis of our description of the alternative approaches to planning we will
formulate the following ideas about “end” and “means”:
.
Instead of fixed objectives, there is a preference for a clear sense of direction that
is socially constructed and adhered to. While the final destination is not known, a
direction for concerted action is agreed (Ashmos et al., 2000 who argue that any
new design should be pictured as a process).
.
Instead of fixed means there is a preference for a well-chosen set of promising
options, with the intention of finding out “what works” (experimentation).

In order to reflect on what these general elements mean for creativity, we elaborate five
discrete points:

(1) creativity and abundance;

(2) the spiritual dimension;
(3) intrinsic and extrinsic motivation;
(4) localizing and privileging; and
(5) action and cognition.

4.1 Creativity and abundance

In a means-end model, creativity has a fixed space. It is a clear-cut exercise with a
defined set of tools that could be useful for a defined portfolio of information. In the
new approach, the scope is much broader. Based on a general direction we try to
imagine different possibilities, not at random (as in the strict Darwinistic model) but
strategically and contextually. We combine this with many kinds of information
(bricolage) that allows us to arrive at a balance between external needs and internal
supplies.
In many documents about creativity, the ability to combine separate elements into a
meaningful unit is considered crucial (Boden, 1991). Creativity is the power to combine
loosely connected items in order to arrive at unusual and effective products. Boden has
argued that this combination-theory has underrated the meaning of the “conceptual
space” that allows for certain combinations. Only if we enter into new conceptual
spaces are we able to arrive at genuinely new ideas. Artists like Mozart are not only
unique because of their ability to combine particular musical elements within a given
framework, but also due to the richness of their repertoire that developed over the
JOCM course of extensive travel throughout Europe and through many encounters with
20,6 colleagues. One could argue that these artists shape from abundance. Put in other
words: it is much easier for them to produce new combinations because they have so
much to combine! Means-end thinking restricts conceptual space. Alternative planning
enlarges the scope.
In practice, for organizations this presents a challenge – to offer members a
854 richness of experience with which they can be creative in many realms. Specialization
in the professional realm is a strong contributor towards achieving quality. However, it
must be “informed” specialization, with sufficient awareness of the context in which
one works so that a sense of new trends and new possibilities is fostered. This calls for
a generalist attitude, formed by contacts amongst a heterogeneous group of people,
from both inside and outside an organization. At this juncture, we converge with the
idea that emergent systems cannot be reduced to their constituent parts – one of the
basic assumptions that underlie the dynamics of complex systems (for a full
description of these assumptions, see Lichtenstein, 2000, p. 257).

4.2 The spiritual dimension

In means-end planning, the measurability of outcomes is considered to be an important
aspect of good planning. The emphasis is on quantitative accountability. Instruments
ideally have already proven to be effective.
If we substitute “fixed objectives” with “a sense of direction” things become
different. In this vision, other than rational, analytic and quantitative data are meant to
play a role (Ambrose, 1998). Space for emotional appeal and spiritual elements emerges
as is illustrated in the mission statements of many organizations. Emotional and
spiritual elements have (or have the potential to have) “binding power” in an
organization, and as they are linked to common values, can motivate and inspire people
(West, 1990).
Empirical research by Milliman et al. (2003) demonstrates that employee alignment
with organizational values translates into less staff turnover. Strong indications
suggest that it also contributes to the intrinsic work satisfaction of employees and to
increased job involvement. Whatever the starting point may be, the imagination
required by which we “envision possible futures” is seen by Wenger (1998) as an
important social creative product. If employees believe they are contributing to a
higher purpose, then creativity is fostered (Butts, 1999), yet the process of visioning or
“futurizing” is a creative accomplishment, in and of itself.
The distinction between more materialistic, quantitative forms of goal-setting and
those that are more spiritual and qualitative has serious consequences for perspectives
on creativity. This distinction is evident even at secondary school: different kinds of
creativity are found in mathematics, physics or chemistry, than in the arts (drawing,
music) or humanities (e.g. essay-writing). In alternative approaches to planning these
forms of creativity merge. We can deny neither the value of quantification throughout
the organizational process nor the related analytic-rational creativity. But this
represents only one chapter of the story.
The contemporary search within many organizations for powerful mission
statements can be seen as a challenge urging for a specific type of creativity (Ambrose,
1998). It is easy to formulate a mission, but it is extremely difficult to put on paper a
mission that is both exclusive and at the same time appealing to the outside as well as
to the inside world of an organization. Word-crafting for developing a relevant and Creativity and
meaningful mission requires imagination and vision, as well as creativity. planning
4.3 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Amabile (1996) makes a distinction between algorithmic tasks, which have clear
straightforward pathways towards solutions, and heuristic tasks that require some
degree of exploration. She argues that extrinsic motivation can support algorithmic 855
tasks, whereas for heuristic tasks intrinsic motivation is the main stimulus, “in which
the creative act is an end in itself” (Amabile, 1990, p. 61).
Extrinsic motivation can be put in terms of material gain (money earned, e.g. salary
or a bonus). Social rewards from superiors, colleagues or peers could be of equal value:
the feeling that one is accepted as a trustworthy and valuable member of a professional
group.
In our view, means-end planning is more closely linked to algorithmic tasks than to
heuristic, whereas this relationship in alternative approaches to planning is the reverse.
A promising fit between a complex and dynamic environment and the assets of an
organization cannot be convincingly “modeled” by experts. Therefore, we put forward
that in new approaches to planning intrinsic motivation must get a bigger share in the
whole motivational layer. Only with commitment and “passion” can complex
innovation processes be effectively completed (Bierly et al., 2000).
This calls for an organization that celebrates (provides space for) people who can
play with ideas and concepts even when not directly related to what others consider
immediately important or useful. Copious literature about “the creative person” is
available (Guastello et al., 1998). We will now examine one important characteristic
namely “uncertainty mindedness,” which refers to the way that people perceive
uncertainty: a danger versus a challenge. People who perceive uncertainty as a danger
tend to have a repertoire of devices for reducing negative feelings, from sticking to
their professional routines to under-rating the dynamism and change in their
environment. By contrast, people who perceive uncertainty as a challenge tend to
accept uncertainty as a fact of life and a stimulus for experimentation. This group also
shares other characteristics. Particularly in problem situations with a perceived threat,
they tend to use fewer dragging strategies (e.g. stereotyping and group-think) than
certainty-minded people (Sorrentino and Roney, 1999; Aarts and Van Woerkum, 2002).
It also calls for an organizational climate in which regular discussions are not always
planned and regulated, for meetings with (partly) open agendas, where people can vent
the ideas they are occupied with, for valuing informal gatherings where not all inputs
are evaluated as immediately useful or not.

4.4 Localizing and privileging

In means-end planning, the formulation of precise objectives and the construction of a
set of instruments that might offer desirable results is predominantly the work of
specialists who are active in the fields of technology, finance, design, marketing, etc.
The work is done by professionals who have a clear domain of expertise and whose
accountability for which kind of decisions is strictly regulated.
In this respect, Wenger (1998) refers to localizing (each location is empowered to
make independent decisions) and privileging (some units have a monopoly for
decision-making on certain issues). This general idea is that creative organizations
JOCM avoid localizing and privileging as much as possible. Creative work can never be the
20,6 result of institutionalized compliance but rather needs everybody’s active engagement.
This idea is confirmed by many authors (see, amongst others, Porth et al., 1999;
Ashmos et al., 2000). Lichtenstein (2000, p. 533), for example, shows that informal
structures – emerging new levels of organizational order like “cross groups” – allow
for a broader synthesis of information, literally creating something (knowledge) that
856 was not there before.
The need for employee participation and involvement certainly holds true for
alternative approaches to planning. A common perspective or shared sense of direction
cannot be formulated by experts and then – after transfer to others – keep the same
meaning. The generation of shared perspectives calls for broad-scale participation. The
willingness and ability to find promising new “fits” between the changing environment
and what an organization can offer must likewise be a participatory effort drawing on
the individual, unique experiences of many people.
Wenger (1998, p. 261) mentions the suggestion box as “an enduring symbol of the
very distance it is supposed to bridge.” Instead, the mission and the steps to be taken
should lie within the competence domain of many people throughout all organizational
layers, and the creativity that is needed for this has to be widespread.

4.5 Action and cognition

In means-end planning, creativity is mainly viewed as a cognitive enterprise. This
implies creative reasoning within a framework of objectives and available resources
through processing the data and ending with a plan in which the instruments get a
fixed place.
Extracting ourselves from this model in order to focus more on experimentation and
doing things differently, we can introduce a new element of creativity: action. In acting,
people experience new impulses. Action is a source of creativity whereas in the old
planning model action mostly pertains to execution.
Later in the paper, we will consider the difference between what we refer to as
cognitive and conative creativity (“conative” means: related to our behavior). Here, we
want to stress the point that by acting we are confronted with the dynamics of a
situation, which cannot be simulated on a comparable level only by thinking. Ford and
Ogilvie (1996) also emphasize action because it provides and introduces the variations
needed to test ambiguous environments. The lessons learned from action taking are an
indispensable source of knowledge creation and competitive advantage. “Learning by
doing” is indeed a valuable concept in this context.
Of course, action leads to cognition: it is not only about doing things (differently).
Our relationship to the situation upon which we act can be viewed as quasi-dialogical.
What we are doing leads to new cognitions, but the opposite is also true: what we can
perceive is related to “our capacities for action and our current disposition for action”
(Joas, 1996, pp. 59). Our action-repertoire, and therefore our perception-frames, is
simultaneously enlarged by a culture of experimentation. Only if people dare to do
things can they learn to deal with complex and dynamic situations which are so
difficult to analyze properly.
The five points we have sketched illustrate differences in the use of creativity in
means-end and alternative approaches to planning. These differences are fundamental
enough to trigger another view on creativity that embraces a much broader conceptual
space, uses the spiritual dimension (imagination), is above all based on intrinsic Creativity and
motivation, avoids localizing and privileging, and stresses action-creativity. planning
5. How to organize the creative process
In this section, we dig a little deeper into the kind of creative process we are
contemplating arriving at more practical decision-oriented considerations. We describe
this process by taking a closer look at four components: the psychological attitude or 857
mood that is involved and how this relates to planning, the way action-creativity might
take a place in innovative organizations, the social character of the creative process,
and the meaning of “orality.”

5.1 The creative mood

In one of his books about creativity, Csikzentmihalyi (1996, p. 242) describes the work
of an artist – a poet – who balances between two contrasting moods: a “relaxed,
receptive, non-judgmental openness to experience” with a “highly concentrated critical
assessment.” The poet expresses both “passionate involvement” and “sardonic
detachment” (Csikzentmihalyi, 1996, p. 243).
The core of how to preserve creativity in life (including organizational life) lies in
this balance: we must accept the existence and interplay of such diverse moods. To
provide conditions that allow the first, creative mood to flourish we should separate it
from rational, analytical activities. Similarly also in alternative approaches to
planning, novel ideas must be made explicit, open for external, critical judgment and
debate.
The need to separate the creative from the rational-analytic can be illustrated by
describing the essence of what is called the creative mood. Van Woerkum (1987)
worked to distinguish the most discriminating characteristics of “being creative.”
These are:
. the experience of “wholeness,” of a space in which formerly dislocated elements
can be combined;
.
the distance creative people feel between the world in which they are involved
while being creative and the outside world (whose existence when noticed is felt
as disturbing); and
.
the undeniable yet untraceable role of the unconsciousness.

Ideas come to the fore in a random manner steered by a hidden entity that makes
certain associations possible. The rational-analytic mood is characterized by the
opposite:
.
elements of deliberation are separate;
.
there is no sense of distance from the environment; and
.
the conscious parts of decision making (e.g. arguments) are dominating.

Csikzentmihalyi offers not less than nine criteria for what he coins as “the flow
experience.” Some of these resemble the three elements stated above. Interestingly, his
idea is that people in a creative mood “know” what is good/bad (e.g. when to take risks)
and enjoy their work for its own sake, in comparison to their normal non-creative
behavior (Csikzentmihalyi, 1996).
JOCM Merging the creative and the rational-analytic mood unavoidably harms the
20,6 potencies of both. We are distanced from the rich and novel ideas available yet our
critical, detached eye is blinded by our positive findings. Hence, the need to separate
the two moods.
Dividing these roles amongst different people may address the challenge: with some
people taking creative roles, others the critical. This solution is chosen, for instance, in
858 organizations that produce cultural services such as in advertising where creative
professionals (in the discovery of new concepts for communication campaigns or in the
production of visuals and texts) are often accompanied by account managers and
financial experts (who, based on figures, estimate the best routes for distributing
messages via the media). However, in alternative approaches to planning we try to
escape localizing in all its forms. Thus, we explore other possibilities. We seek to
combine the two roles in one person.
Several books concerning specialized tasks such as writing, suggest a clear
awareness of the differences in mood that are required and the consequences. An
interesting example comes from an old book about the writing process, in which Tichy
(1966) proposes four steps:
(1) plan;
(2) write;
(3) cool; and
(4) revise.

In her view, the creative part (writing) is separate from the rational-analytic parts
(planning, revising), with an extra guarantee that moods will not merge ensured
through the use of a cooling down period.
In organizational activities, we should be aware at the moment we get involved if
they are creative or not. Therefore, we have to keep in mind the differences in mood in
order to preserve their specific qualities.

5.2 Cognitive and conative creativity

Stressing action as an important element in alternative planning approaches gives rise
to renewed reflection on how we perceive creativity. As stated earlier, creativity can
be present in “thinking before we act” – what traditional planners do – but it can also
be found in the action itself (which they typically do not). We argued that, by means of
experimental behavior (doing things in a new way) we receive impulses which we
could never get through thought alone. Now, we will explore in more depth the
difference between what we term cognitive and conative creativity.
The inspiration for grasping this difference comes once again from the study of
creativity in artistic domains. A German psychologist on music, Bahle (1930), found
that composers of his time had quite different ways of composing music. Some
composers worked in intense contact with their instrument, usually the piano. Others
worked “freely” without experimentation through something like producing music.
Prior to the time of Bahle we have two classic examples, that of Beethoven who was a
restless composer creating music in enduring interaction with his pianoforte, in
contrast to Mozart who could write a symphony while traveling in a coach. The same
distinction can be found with writers or filmmakers (e.g. Hitchcock as a cognitive
filmmaker, scrupulously planning the film beforehand, and Werner Herzog as a Creativity and
conative creative filmmaker, shaping his films on the set with a basic idea in mind). planning
The conclusion could be that some people are more cognitive creative, while others
need action. But most people are not so extreme: they are both. We also encounter this
in artistic work. For instance, De Sade, a French liberal writer who, in his ideas about
writing novels in the introduction to his book (1800) “Les Crimes de l’amour” (The
Crimes of Love), stressed the point that a good design is required before production 859
begins. After that, one must write diligently but without keeping too strictly to the
borders that are meant to prescribe the action (the design). He argued: “Why would you
not accept that the impulse you are driven by while writing is of equal value to the
impulse you got from your designing” (De Sade, 1998). So, in terms of creativity we
may better use both creative sources – the cognitive and the conative.
Conative creativity is more readily recognizable in specific organizational units
such as industrial design or in marketing communication. We broaden the scope by
using conative creativity in alternative approaches to planning such as: finding new
perspectives or directions, or combining trends in the environment and the innovative
possibilities within an organization. Conative creativity could manifest as visualizing
things (drawing, taking photographs), spontaneous theatre or even free undisturbed
“experimental” talk. This conative creativity is the (mostly implicit) basis for a lot of
alternative workshops in which these sorts of activities form an important element in
identifying new pathways. For instance, simulation (e.g. Simu-real) is a technique,
which has been elaborated in many different situations (Bunker and Alban, 1997;
Holman and Devane, 1999). Computer simulation could also fall under the conative
creativity label.

5.3 The social dimension of creativity and planning

Alternative approaches to planning underline the need for a common sense of direction
and widespread contributions from those engaged in efforts to imagine new fits
between the organization and its environment. As a consequence, the creative process
should be a social affair.
Here, we face a potential problem that came up earlier. In many writings, creativity
is situated in an individual mind that must deal with an unwilling group. For instance,
Seitz (2001, p. 13) defines “creative temperament” as a “problem solving attitude,
perseverance in the face of social opprobrium . . . ” Really creative people can bare such
criticism.
We can neither deny the importance of individual contributions (to the contrary),
nor the social constraints that exist in organizations. However, by describing creativity
as “social” we might move towards more positive accounts of people interacting
creatively.
One explanation for the emphasis on individual creativity may be the way in which
the social is generally depicted. Often, we find a false distinction between a dynamic,
experimentally-minded individual and a passive, conformity-minded social
environment that coerces the individual “back to normal.” This distinction
underrates the importance of a lively, dynamic social environment for nourishing
individual creativity that we also see in the artistic domain (Gedo, 1990). Of course, the
social can be considered dynamic and experimental as well, and this is what we would
like to maintain as both possible and necessary.
JOCM However, we cannot neglect danger of a social anti-creative attitude. West
20,6 convincingly demonstrates the effects of social cohesion on creativity. On the one hand,
“it increases feelings of self-actualization and psychological safety.” The feeling that
“. . . one is not alone responsible for possible failure . . . ” These are the merits. The
risks, on the other hand, are an “unwillingness to question group decisions” and “a
focus on relationships rather than on tasks” (West, 1990, p. 83).
860 Our point is that these risks are real, but unavoidable. We think groups can function
as creative groups, preserving an internal critical attitude and an orientation towards
what an organization has to deliver: valuable products for an environment.
One concept used to analyze a creative process in groups is participatory safety
(West, 1990). Creative involvement can be fostered if the social environment of the
group is perceived as interpersonally non-threatening. We refer to Milliman et al. (2003)
who emphasizes that freedom of expression is one element that supports group
functioning.
Another approach focuses on the constructive handling of conflicts within
organizations: instead of seeing conflict as a source of disturbing unrest, it can be
conceptualized as a source for new ideas. Conflicts make particular, often dormant
themes relevant. They can introduce different ideas into organizations acting as
stepping-stones towards a new perspective or a new organizational-environmental fit.
A key point here is that conflicts must be discussed in an open way. Much
organizational creativity is hidden. It is the “creativity of the oppressed,” a strong force
that rather than being oriented towards the goals of an organization instead copes with
what is passed on “from above” (Liep, 2001). This hidden creativity has to be guided
into the right direction and brought into the open. West (1990) proposes teams
consisting of six to eight people from different fields or functions, including opinion
leaders who can aid in dissemination of innovations, and a minority of dissenting
members who can play a devil’s advocate role to counter group-think. Discussing
differences is a basic building block for an innovative organization, “. . . deviance, the
difficult search for understanding in misunderstanding, is a prerequisite for novel
change” (Stacey et al., 2000, p. 125).
Creativity within groups is, moreover, not only hindered but also helped by a certain
amount of external pressure. Too little “harshness” makes discussion too smooth and
induces “Spielerei.” A reasonable level of commitment, forced by the working
environment, can be helpful. However, too many constraints – an overly harsh or
smothering environment – is also unproductive because it penalizes all
experimentation (Goertzel, 1997).
A final way of addressing the social character of creativity could be based on the
interactive aspects of organizational encounters, which was one of our starting points.
We assume narratives to be an important feature within processes of social change.
Lloyd takes an even stronger position stating that “narrative comprehension” is the
primary reasoning mode. Other kinds of reasoning, relying on special rules for cross
checking and evaluating our putative conclusions, come in second place (Lloyd, cited in
Wilkes, 1997, p. 289).
According to Borofsky, people telling stories need to be creative in order to grab the
attention of the audience and make the tale come to life. “There is always a move
beyond the habituated, beyond the repeated” (Borofsky, 2001, p. 67). But the social
environment can help or hinder innovative talk, with respect to the form as well
as the content. Creativity in narratives can be looked upon as both an individual and a Creativity and
social accomplishment. An organization as a place for interaction in which new stories planning
are produced and disseminated is in our view a dynamic and innovative entity worth
embracing. This leads us to take a closer look at the merits of orality.

5.4 Orality
The social use of language is another potential source of creativity. In free discussions, 861
we can arrive at relatively new ideas by the fundamental unpredictability of free
speech (Stacey, 2001). In free speech people experiment with new thoughts, never
before articulated. Free speech allows for imagination, novel perspectives on different
directions and the necessary steps for realizing these new ideas. An important
characteristic of speech or “orality” is the predominant influence of the speaker’s
intention and the gist of the story as compared to written products, wherein data and
details are more critical (Hildyard and Olson, 1982; Nonaka, cited in Lichtenstein, 2000,
p. 533; Van Woerkum, 2002). Space for experimentation is restricted where presenters
constantly refer to texts. Often in presentations this is the experience – literacy
invades the domain of orality in the form of slides or power point images where lists of
(often) many points require the attention, and the focus on quantitative data hampers
the free experimental discussion necessary for stimulating creativity. The stress on
minute-taking so that everything is recorded and approved, also has a restrictive
influence on what can be put forward. Here, we perceive the merging of critical
assessment (the rational-analytic mood) with the creative mood. The more texts
which are used are referred to, the more creativity is restricted. Speech is fast in being
sent out and relatively slow in receiving. Texts are to the contrary, written slowly and
decoded quickly. In texts, we find much more self-monitoring than in free speech.
Therefore, we should try to mould creative periods as encounters that preserve the
potential for orality with as little text-bound input as possible. Of course, at later
moments, facts and issues must be verified through the use of texts and transcription.
Planning, including alternative approaches to planning, demands a great deal of paper
work. But during the creative process itself, spontaneous discourse can best operate
without too much dependence on documentation (Van Woerkum, 2002; Lichtenstein,
2000; Wenger, 1998).
Since, orality is especially important when it comes to enlarging the conceptual
space, by interacting people, leading to new creative combinations, it is one of the
driving forces in alternative approaches of planning. But there are more merits.
Changing existing perspectives on organization-environment relationships
(re-framing) is nearly impossible unless people are encouraged to become involved
in intense creative interactions. Moreover, the sharing of a new common perspective
built on trust cannot be realized without speech, in which the intention of the speakers,
in mutual interaction, is at stake (Addleson, 1996, p. 38).

6. Conclusion
Creativity, as the cultural competence to deal with new and complex environments, is
one of the assets of innovative organizations. In means-end planning, this creativity is
mainly restricted to creative problem solving: how to construct an ideal set of
instruments for a concrete objective. In alternative approaches to planning, a
broadened concept of creativity is more appropriate. In this paper, we sketched the
JOCM outlines for this kind of creativity. Planning should be focused on the enlargement of
20,6 conceptual space, it should involve a spiritual dimension and should be based on
intrinsic motivation, avoiding localizing and privileging and be open for action as well
as for cognition. We have formulated a few ideas to foster creativity within an
organization. It may be useful to transfer these principles into practice. We explored
the relationship between the creative mood and alternative approaches to planning, the
862 distinction between cognitive and conative creativity, the social character of the
creative process and the function of orality. In doing so, we made use of the ideas of
many authors who write about planning, complexity, organizational learning, and
the role of spirituality in organizations. This strengthens the idea that the way
we problematize the relationship between planning and creativity fits into a specific
mode of thinking about organizations and organizational change for which there is
growing attention.
We submit that renewed attention should be paid to the position of creativity in an
organization. Often creativity is saved for special days devoted to a new organizational
mission or for specific creativity-triggering activities such as “brainstorming.” We
would like to argue that “being creative” should be a part of an organization’s everyday
experience as a component of normal meetings and a reality for all members of an
organization. Of course, in some ways creativity is always present in informal
encounters and off-the-record comments within more formal interactions. The point is
that creativity can be brought in and used more effectively if we are aware of its crucial
meaning and of the way we can arrange it methodically.
As we saw, alternative approaches to planning offer a lot of possibilities for
organizing the creative capital of an organization in a promising way. They go hand in
hand. Without planning, creativity is out of control and cannot be properly effectuated.
Without creativity these new ideas about planning make planning an empty vessel,
doomed to founder.

References
Aarts, M.N.C. and Van Woerkum, C.M.J (2002), “Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex
problems”, in Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (Eds), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social
Learning in Rural Resource Management, Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 421-37.
Addleson, M. (1996), “Resolving the spirit and substance of organizational learning”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Amabile, T.M. (1990), “Within you, without you; the social psychology of creativity and beyond”,
in Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 61-91.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Ambrose, D. (1998), “Creative organizational vision building through collaborative,
visual-metaphorical thought”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 229-342.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Gabriel, Y. (2001), “Emotion, learning and organizational change
towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 435-51.
Argyris, C. (1994), “Good communication that blocks learning”, Harvard Business Review,
July-August, pp. 77-85.
Ashmos, D.P., Duchon, D. and McDaniel, R.R. Jr (2000), “Organizational responses to complexity: Creativity and
the effect on organizational performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 577-94. planning
Bahle, J. (1930), Zur Psychologie des musikalischen Gestaltens. Ein Untersuchung Űber das
Komponieren auf experimenteller und historischen Grundlage (On the Psychology of
Musical Creation; An Inquiry into Composing on an Experimental and Historic Base),
Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.
863
Bierly, P.E., Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E.W. (2000), “Organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618.
Boden, M. (1991), The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Borofsky, R. (2001), “Wondering about Wutu”, in Liep, J. (Ed.), Locating Cultural Creativity, Pluto
Press, London, pp. 62-70.
Bunker, B.B. and Alban, B.T. (1997), Large Group Interventions, Josses-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Butts, D. (1999), “Spirituality at work: an overview”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 328-31.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity; How and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
De Bono, E. (2000), available at: www.edwarddebono.com
De Sade, M. (1998), The Crimes of Love, Peter Limited, London (a translation of the first printing
of 1800).
Doorewaard, H. and Benschop, Y. (2002), “HRM and organizational change in emotional
endeveavor”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 272-86.
Dörner, D. (1997), The Logic of Failure, Metropolitan Books, New York, NY.
Elias, N. (1939), Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische
Untersuchungen (About the Process of Civilization, Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic
Studies), Haus zum Falken, Basel.
Ford, C.M. and Ogilvie, D.T. (1996), “The role of creative action in organizational learning and
change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 54-62.
Friedman, P.G. (1984), “The limits of consensus: group processes for individual growth”, in
Phillips, G.M. and Word, J.T. (Eds), Emergent Issues in Human Decision Making, Southern
Illinois Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 142-60.
Gabora, L. (2000), “The beer can theory of creativity”, in Bentley, P. and Corne, D. (Eds), Creative
Evolutionary Systems, Morgan Kauffman, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-26.
Galbraith, J.R. (1996), “Designing the innovating organization”, in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How
Organizational Learn, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 156-81.
Gedo, J.E. (1990), “More on creativity and its vicissitudes”, in Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds),
Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 34-45.
Goertzel, B. (1997), From Complexity to Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Goudsblom, J. (2001), Stof waar honger uit ontstond. Over evolutie en sociale processen (Dust, Out
of which Hunger has been Arisen. About Evolution and Social Processes), Meulenhof,
Amsterdam.
Guastello, S.J., Shissler, J., Driscoll, J. and Hyde, T. (1998), “Are some cognitive styles more
creatively productive than others”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 77-91.
Hildyard, A. and Olson, D.R. (1982), “On the comprehension and memory of oral vs written
discourse”, in Tannen, D. (Ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and
Literacy, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
JOCM Holman, P. and Devane, T. (Eds) (1999), The Change Handbook, Berret-Koehler Publishers,
San Francisco, CA.
20,6
Hoogerwerf, E.C. and Poorthuis, A.M. (2002), “The network multilogue: a chaos approach to
organizational design”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 382-90.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J.C. and White, R.E. (1996) in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How Organizations Learn,
864 International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 381-409.
Joas, H. (1996), The Creativity of Action, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lichtenstein, B.M.B. (2000), “Emergence as a process of self-organizing; new assumptions and
insights from the study of non-linear dynamic systems”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 526-44.
Liep, J. (Ed.) (2001), Locating Cultural Creativity Introduction, Pluto Press, London, pp. 1-13.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Marion, R. (1999), The Edge of Organization; Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social
Systems, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work
attitudes, an exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-47.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72,
pp. 107-14.
Mintzberg, H. and Quin, J. (1991), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nonaka, I. (1996), “The knowledge-creating company”, in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How Organizations
Learn, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 18-31.
Pepper, G.L. (1995), Communicating in Organizations: A Cultural Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Porth, S.J., McCall, J. and Bausch, Th.A. (1999), “Spiritual themes of the ‘learning organization’”,
Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-20.
Seitz, J.A. (2001), The Political Economy of Creativity, Department of Political Science and
Psychology, York College, City University of New York, New York, NY.
Sorrentino, R.M. and Roney, C.J.R. (1999), The Uncertain Mind; Individual Differences in Facing
the Unknown, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Stacey, R.D. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations, Learning and Knowledge
Creation, Routledge, London.
Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management; Fad or Radical
Challenges to Systems Thinking?, Routledge, London.
Stark, G. (1992), “Time – the next source of competitive advantage”, in Mercer, D. (Ed.),
Managing the External Environment: A Strategic Perspective, Sage, London, pp. 215-2332.
Tichy, H.J. (Ed.) (1966), Effective Writing, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, Chichester.
Van Woerkum, C.M.J. (1987), Massamediale voorlichting; een werkplan (Communication via the
Mass Media: A Working Plan), Boom, Meppel/Amsterdam.
Van Woerkum, C.M.J. (2002), “Orality in environmental planning”, European Environment,
Vol. 12, pp. 160-72.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Creativity and
West, M.A. (1990), “The social psychology of innovation in groups”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. planning
(Eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies,
Wiley, Chichester.
Whittington, R. (2001), What is Strategy – and Does it Matter, Thomson Learning, London.
Williamson, O. (1991), “Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 12, p. 76, Special issue. 865
Wilkes, A.L. (1997), Knowledge in Minds: Iindividual and Collective Processes in Cognition,
Psychology Press, Hove.

Corresponding author
M.N.C. Aarts can be contacted at: noelle.aarts@wur.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints