Organisational Structure and Creativity

The optimum environment for creativity within an organisation can either be enhanced or impeded by organisational structure (Uzzi and Spiro, 2005, Amabile et al., 1996, Von Stamm, 2003, Bilton, 2007). The key objective of this study is therefore to explore those elements of structure which enhance and impede organisational creativity. If creativity is a source of an organisation’s competitive advantage, enabling it innovate or change rapidly in shifting markets, then the company’s structure can either encourage or hinder that creativity.

To trade successfully internationally the strategy chosen must be supported by the organisations’ structure. For Irish architectural practices with international offices various dimensions of structure concern creativity in the organisation. For those practices creativity can be enhanced if supported and not impeded by organisational structure. Their structure therefore needs to encourage and promote a more creative organisation to secure competitive advantage.

The previous section outlined strategies which can be pursued aimed at delivering creativity where the emphasis is on innovation. From the literature dimensions of structure need to be considered by any organisation to support strategy implementation. The evidence shows that organisational structure can impede or enhance the organisational environment for creativity: what can be concluded at this stage is that the elements of centralisation, complexity and formality need to be considered in relation to creativity in organisations. This literary review brings these elements together and connects them for the purposes of this study in order to explore how they are experienced in Irish architectural practices with overseas offices as given their scale and widespread geographic locations. Re-structuring is also explored in relation to creativity as the various dimensions of structure considered below may contribute to the ways in which companies may strategically re-structure by supporting creativity for competitive advantage.

4.8.1 Centralisation

Intrinsic motivation is critical to the work environment for creativity, with a rise in extrinsic motivation leading to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1996). One way to overcome this from a structural perspective is to (partially) de-centralise to reduce bureaucratic costs and give more authority to lower levels of the organisation (Hill and Jones, 2004).

Newer and flatter management structures become possible as more information within an organization comes on line. Organizations will no longer be forced to choose between centralization, for tighter control, and decentralization, for faster decision making.

On-line technology will make it possible to have centralized control with de-centralized decision making.

(McBride and Scott cited in Davidow and Malone 1993, p.168)

The combination of self-managed teams and de-centralisation of decision making are identified by Tomer (2001) as characteristics of a high performance work system which allows employees have more involvement in the decisions being made and so they work “harder, smarter, more creatively, and more cooperatively than employees in traditional organisations” (p.10).

De-centralisation is highlighted in the literature as providing a better basis for creativity in the organisation as employees at lower levels have more authority and work harder and more creatively. However the literature reviewed in the previous chapter highlights that de-centralisation is a challenge and requires clear strategic intent, supported by an organisation’s structure to share knowledge through collaborative arrangements in order to multiply resources. The approaches taken towards (de) centralisation by those practices is examined in this enquiry in order to make recommendations regarding (de)centralisation accordingly. It is interesting that the literature suggests the concept of partially centralising as a solution. Partial de-centralisation, the literature suggests, enables a reduction of bureaucratic (central)

costs together with maintaining authority at lower levels. Authority at lower levels as previous mentioned is an enhancer of creativity.

4.8.2 Complexity

The taller the organisation the less flexible, therefore the flatter the organisation the more creativity is enhanced (Hill and Jones, 2004). The ability of companies to remain flexible when operating in multiple markets requires a flat structure in order to increase creativity for competitive advantage.

The literature suggests that creativity is enhanced by flatter organisational structures as they have the ability to respond quickly. Accordingly this would suggest that if an organisation does have strategies that support creativity; the company’s organisational structure should have the flexibility to adapt and change quickly. For Irish architectural practices the rate of competitive intensity is increased due to a fall in demand for services. What is established from the literature is that as competitive intensity increases, so too does the rate of innovation. Therefore competitive advantage can be gained by those practices that are better placed to pioneer and innovate and this can be better achieved when a flatter structure increases creativity in the company.

4.8.3 Formalisation

Creative work is amenable to low degrees of formalisation as the work is less defined and controlled by rules (Bratton et al., 2007). Smaller organisations differ from larger ones in relation to formality with organisations becoming more bureaucratic as they grow larger (Daft, 2007). When formalisation is low, employees have more freedom to work at their own discretion. In relation to organisational structures, the literature suggests that “internal strife, conservatism, and rigid, formal management structures within organisations will impede creativity...Because individuals are likely to perceive each of these factors as controlling, they may lead to increases in individuals’

extrinsic motivation, and corresponding decreases in the intrinsic motivation that is necessary for creativity” (Amabile et al 1996, p. 1162). Creativity is enhanced by a

flexible, adaptable approach to organisational design (Woodman et al., 1993, Hordon, 2007). High degrees of formalization, as found in unionised workplaces for example, constrain managers’ ability to mobilize creativity (Bratton et al., 2007).

Informal or voluntary structures are organised around knowledge allow the organisation to be even more flexible (Wenger et al., 2002). The literature would suggest that appreciating that both formal and informal structures working together can provide a powerful tool for the mobilization of creativity as the more companies achieve a blend of functional expertise in new ways, the more they build unanticipated products (Hamel, 1990).

Within Irish architecture at present there is a need for formal structures to keep changing or restructuring to meet shifting market needs which exist more and more abroad and in that climate, informal structures such as communities of practice can provide the stability required across the organisation.