Insights from the grounded model

Several new concepts emerged in the development of this model that have theoretical implications for our understanding of creativity and control in organizations. Perhaps most importantly, my analysis reveals how the project budget informs the creative practices within each temporality and enables coordination across them. My research builds on the notion that budgets can be used to mediate the tensions between creativity and control (Jeacle & Carter, 2012) by showing how the budget is implicated in different processes that may, on the surface, seem quite removed from its influence.

While the detailed shooting schedule developed for each block outlines the when (time) and the where (place) each creative contribution is required, the project budget shapes ‘how’ each input will be realized. The project budget is not given primacy over the creative aspirations of each script, but its internalization as a parameter does influence all four processes. It is a factor in the changing relationships between creativity and control across these processes.

8.2.1 The changing relationships between creativity and control

My analysis of the linkages across the different temporalities within each process reveals how different kinds of creativity come together in a set of layered processes where each temporality builds on what has come before. Coordinating across temporalities becomes possible because each group engages in the same set of processes to balance creativity and control, albeit from a different perspective. Each of these different perspectives adds to a clearer and more complete view of the overall picture; however, for these multiple perspectives to coalesce in the final

product, the individual pieces must be combined and arranged in a meaningful way (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004).

The temporal structures enacted by each of the different groups act as a control for their different temporal perspectives (Ancona et al., 2001). This form of control is enhanced by each of the four processes. For instance, establishing a common core (i.e. creative vision) provides the minimum creative requirements for each script. In this way, conceptualizing provides the basis for the shared mental model (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004) developed for each script. Although there are tensions between creativity and control, these tensions are seen as productive as they shape and refine the contours of the emerging shared mental model.

In contrast, visualizing is centered on elaborating the specific images of the particular pieces that each group needs to contribute. The interplay between creativity and control becomes more apparent as each group tries to enhance the creative minimum established for each script. Since the path to the final goal cannot be specified in advance (Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Perlow, 1994), this process is a crucial step in charting that course. Controls are centered on containing creativity within a certain trajectory so that the pieces do come together in a meaningful way.

The temporal mapping that transpires during the design of each detailed schedule not only establishes that path forward, it also incorporates temporal requirements of the different groups (Ancona et al., 2001; Perlow, 1999). When deadlines are accepted as a creative challenge, they become a source of inspiration (Amabile et al., 1996) that facilitates coordination over time. Further, the vision of how each day should best unfold over the course of the schedule is not held as fixed or rigid, but is developed with flexibility in mind (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004).

Creativity and control can also become substitutes for each other in LSCCs, as shown in the process of materializing. Creativity is required to respond to unexpected events or

interruptions, particularly given the clearly established time constraints (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004; Eisenhardt, 2004). While unexpected events and interruptions manifest in different ways for each of the different groups, creativity is often deployed to regain control. This relationship between creativity and control is also implicit in the study by Jarzabkowski and colleagues (2012) where new coordinating mechanisms were created in response to disruptions that required new ways of organizing interdependent activities, revealing new interdependencies in the

process.

8.2.2 The project budget as a social accomplishment

In the literature on temporal coordination, much attention has been focused on how temporal structures facilitate communication across different temporalities (e.g. Ballard, 2007; Montoya- Weiss, Massey & Song, 2001). Schedules, meetings, deadlines and even the patterns of email exchanges in virtual teams have all been explored from this perspective (e.g. Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). For instance, as a communication device, the assignment of a deadline not only signals its importance of completing specific activities, it also regulates interactions (Ballard, 2007). Project members may increase or decrease the level of interactions to meet the deadlines depending on whether their tasks are collective or individual in nature.

The communicative capacity of budgets has been identified in the management

accounting literature as something that inheres in their ability to provide a common vocabulary for disparate organizational groups (e.g. Czarniaskwa-Jorges & Jacobsen, 1989; Hansen & Van der Stede, 2004). Budgets are not only used to communicate priorities, but they can also provide managers with the autonomy and flexibility required to respond to changing circumstances (Frow et al, 2010). My findings reinforce the importance of both and show how the autonomy and flexibility enabled by the project budget is leveraged by the creative practices of managers in

LSCCs. I also extend these findings by showing how autonomy and flexibility are

complementary to the shared understanding of common priorities, including the importance of attaining budgetary targets.

The temporality-specific meanings and metrics associated with the project budget contribute to understanding budgets as a collective accomplishment. Each group plays a unique role in this process from the writers avoiding certain kinds of scenes in their scripts to the prep crew creating designs that maximize depth of field per dollar and the shooting crew taking additional precautions on complex scenes given their association with increased costs. Although these metrics may not be precise, they reflect the constant attention paid by each to balance the creative aspirations with the available monetary resources.

If the project budget is not attentively managed within and across temporalities, creativity suffers and disruptions in the creative process may jeopardize the quality of the product.

However, merely observing the quality of the final product cannot illuminate the role of the project budget in coordinating the creative inputs across different temporalities, particularly since its effectiveness in temporal coordination hinges on how the budget is used. In my setting, the parameters of the project budget are so embedded in the practices of each group that they might be easily overlooked, rather than seen as something actively and deliberately managed. Yet by accepting these parameters as part of their role, individuals draw on their respective areas of expertise to find innovative (and less costly) ways to enhance the quality of the final product.

The project budget also has important temporal implications. Its fluidity allows resources to be reallocated across departments as well as over time. These reallocations are made whenever necessary (and possible) to realize the specific creative aspirations of the project. This approach to the budget is possible because it is viewed as an estimate, not a standard. Consequently,

variances against the initial estimate are not seen as a signal that something is wrong or to punish those who may have gone astray (Dougherty, 2008), which would be consistent with a diagnostic use of budgets. Rather, variances are interpreted in relation to the accuracy of the initial estimate since the specific creative requirements of the project only become apparent over time and continue to evolve as the project unfolds. Cost estimates are continually updated through the detailed planning process, which continues for the duration of the project. This interactive use of the budget is focused on dialogue and idea generation, which allows monetary resources to be reallocated proactively based on the creative requirements as they become known.

Series X is an exemplary case not just because of the seamless flow of activities across the different groups, but also because of the pride of place that was so clearly evident among the crew. The crew consistently delivers a product with production values in excess of what would be expected given its modest budget. ‘The Little Engine that Could’ spirit permeated the crew and was reinforced through the leadership approach taken by both the Showrunner and Line Producer (i.e. senior management). A carrot-and-stick (i.e. reward and punishment) approach to management was viewed as counterproductive, while creating an environment of psychological safety was seen as a necessary component to inspire the creative performance. The autonomy created through the delegation of budgetary responsibility was enhanced by the problem-solving approach to control practiced by the senior managers on the project. This, in addition,

contributed to the creation of an environment of professionalism that also enhanced creativity across individuals and groups.