Exploratory work found that organisational culture and particularly the environment created inside an organisation has a powerful influence on creativity. This is reflected in elements of the practitioner literature, as evidenced by the following quote;
“The poet and the engineer may seem a million miles apart in their particular forms of expertise, but when they bring good ideas into the world, similar
92 patterns of development and collaboration shape that process. If there is a single maxim… it is that we are often better served by connecting ideas than we are by protecting them… The truth is, when one looks at innovation in nature and in culture, environments that build walls around good ideas tend to be less innovative in the long run than more open-ended environments. Good ideas may not want to be free, but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine."
Source: Johnson (2010) Page 22.
From an academic perspective the key point emerging from the text above is that similar patterns of development and collaboration are thought to shape the idea generation process, no matter the context (Johnson, 2010). Environments that connect ideas with one another are thought to be fundamentally more innovative than those that do not (Johnson, 2010; Sailer, 2011). Similar arguments are put forward within other parts of the literature where it is proposed that organisations are an extension of natural community life, and have become gradually more purposeful and designed more consciously throughout history (Bruggeman, 2008). A key underlying philosophy is that organisations should be seen as networks of individuals and that the boundaries between individuals, groups and organisations should not be distinct, but should be ‘fuzzy’ interfaces through which information freely flows (Bruggeman, 2008; Sailer, 2011). Individuals are thought to be members of many different groups at once and have ties which extend far beyond the organisation which provides them with employment (Bruggeman, 2008; Johnson, 2010).
Clear links exist between the thoughts presented above and the ‘strength of weak ties’ (Granovetter, 1973) concept first covered in section 2.3. It is clear that there are distinct overlaps throughout the literature, from practitioner to
93 academic in nature, arguing that organisational boundaries should not be seen as clear, fixed lines. In particular it is thought that individuals inside organisations need to develop diverse networks of weak ties in order to increase the number of ideas they produce (Kanter, 1996; Ruef, 2002; Johnson, 2010).
While this literature review is not going to consider organisational culture in depth, the exploratory study did indicate that the subject area was interconnected with the environment for creativity. Culture is a common set of shared meanings or understandings about a group or organisation and its problems, goals and practices (Pullen et al, 2009). This understanding can be fused with the notion that organisational culture is an ‘expressive social tissue’ (Pettigrew, 1985). What is meant by this is that culture binds the bones of organisational structure to the muscles of organisational processes (Pettigrew, 1985). This demonstrates why it is an important factor to consider when creating a climate to foster creative idea generation. Despite stating that culture is not a subject which this literature review will focus on in detail, a question which is relevant concerns how culture is influenced by organisation size, given the diversity of SMEs (Burns, 2007).
Cultures are argued to act as perceptual filters, affecting decision making styles and causing resistance to strategic change (Mintzberg et al, 2009). They evolve as organisations grow and sub-cultures can emerge given the necessary conditions (Burns, 2008). Creative cultures within small organisations can become more rigid as these firms move through the growth phases shown in
94 dependent on traditional structures and radical innovation depends more on informal structures (Pullen et al, 2009). Given this information, it can therefore be suggested that the definition of an ‘effective’ culture will be dependent on the context of the organisation and what it is attempting to achieve.
Moving back to the ‘environment’ for creativity, a relatively recent literature review shows that there are three essential questions that may form the basis of further inquiry (Staber, 2008). These are;
What are the origins of new ideas?
How are ideas selected and transmitted?
How are ideas retained, and how is inertia overcome?
While this study is not specifically concerned with the first of the questions the latter two do have relevance and sit alongside other theories which have already been debated (Ruef, 2002; Bruggeman, 2008; Sailer, 2011). In particular there is a strong connection between these questions (Staber, 2008) and the perspective from practice introduced at the start of this subsection (Johnson, 2010). As noted above, it is thought that connecting ideas in an organisational environment is of crucial importance (Johnson, 2010) and on the face of it this theory appears to answer, at least in part, the third question above.
A key variable in the encouragement of new ideas is the ‘ecological’ structure of the environment in which they compete for human attention (Staber, 2008). In this sense ‘ecology’ means that it is not isolated ideas, but ideas in combination
95 with others that make creative production possible (Staber, 2008). This argument is illustrated in figure 2.9 which shows a comparison between low and high density networks. Again this theory is very similar to that advanced by practitioner literature (Johnson, 2010).
Figure 2.9: Density of Networks of Ideas
Source: Staber (2008) Page 576.
Permission to reproduce this diagram has been granted by Taylor & Francis Group (www.tandfonline.com) Figure 2.9 demonstrates differences between low and high density networks. A
high density network is thought to provide an environment in which more ‘chance’ collisions can occur and it is argued that this type of environment can be created through a myriad of weak ties (Ruef, 2002). Different sources (Rutten and Boekema, 2007; Staber, 2008) argue that high density networks lead to increased creative idea generation, suggesting that in this sort of environment, individual ideas can connect and fuse more readily. Separate studies support this understanding and argue that new research needs to focus on the interactions between ideas as well as the interactions between people in
96 order to add value to the field (Weick et al, 2005). This is a further consideration which this study needs to take on board before fieldwork begins.
The argument above has wide reaching implications for how organisations foster an effective culture in which creative idea generation can thrive and indeed how organisations learn. Yet another piece in this jigsaw is the notion that organisations need to value and reward creativity in order to unlock its potential (Andriopoulos, 2001; Mayfield, 2009). The proposition is that creative idea generation flourishes in a trusting environment (Politis, 2005) that does not seek to over-control (Busco et al, 2012) creativity but provides open internal and external channels of communication (Martinez and Aldrich, 2011). This thought can be linked back to the idea that organisations have ‘fuzzy’ boundaries with multiple lines of communication flowing in many directions at any one time (Bruggeman, 2008). Further links can also be traced back to the theories of servant leadership (Graham, 1991; Parolini et al, 2009) and discussions concerning the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973; Ruef, 2002). Previous discussions have linked servant leadership with trust (Sendjaya and Pekerti, 2010), indicating that this is a very important factor in determining what ‘effective’ leadership is. Further weight is added to the points discussed in this paragraph where it is suggested that the ultimate issue in an organisation’s internal environment is the degree of freedom given to individuals (Sinetar, 1985). It is argued that individuals need freedom to work creatively and a degree of slack in the resources that they control (see Amabile et al, 1996). From a manager’s perspective, encouraging creative idea generation can potentially mean building tolerance for a level of disorder and unconventional thinking.
97 There is thought to be a limit to disorder and unconventional thinking with counter arguments stating that ‘unfettered’ creativity can be very dangerous and that there is a fine line between being creative and unleashing chaos in an organisation (Burns, 2007). To guide the process it is argued that a commercial outlook is needed together with a disciplined approach to exploiting the ideas and opportunities generated by creative thinking (Busco et al, 2012). This is an understanding which resonates with the findings of the exploratory study although again it is not clear how the idea generation process operates in larger SME environments.
Building on the points made so far, a further theme in the present literature is that organisations need to tolerate a degree of error. Arguably organisations that focus too heavily on error prevention are likely to have poor levels of exploration (i.e. idea generation) and innovation (Kirkman and Den Hartog, 2004). Significant further weight is added to this emerging consensus by another source which engages in empirical research (Hitt et al, 1996). This specific study examined innovation in 250 R&D firms and found that companies with the strictest financial controls were the least innovative (Hitt et al, 1996). Having said that strict controls have the potential to stifle creative idea generation, other areas of literature suggest that the opposite is also true; too little control also limits creativity and innovation (Leonard and Swap, 2005). Far from stifling creative thought, monitoring and guidance mechanisms are needed to improve innovative output (Leonard and Swap, 2005), arguably because good ideas are not otherwise forced through the decision making chain. Links can be drawn between these thoughts and the third research question posed by
98 Staber (2008) regarding organisational inertia. Returning to the context of jazz, it is again noted here that error can become a “positive springboard to prime the musical imagination” (Barrett, 1998; p610). This idea is also developed within practitioner literature where a case is built for organisations to encourage what is known as ‘generative error’, in other words, building and iterating from mistakes rather than apportioning blame and stopping projects. Synthesising from this literature it appears that there is a case for organisations adopting an effective level of monitoring although it is not known what this level is. This study should seek to understand more about the relationship between idea generation and error.
Discussions regarding the relationship between error and creative idea generation would not be complete without drawing on other relevant areas of literature. Practitioner literature, in particular, notes that error and mistakes are phases which organisations need to ‘suffer’ through on their path to new innovations (Catmull, 2008; Baréz-Brown, 2006 & 2009). Keeping with this particular point other sources suggest that rather than ‘suffering’ through mistakes, error itself can create a path which leads out of comfortable assumptions (Jevons, 1958; Johnson, 2010). Although the former is a relatively dated source, it proposes that being ‘right’ keeps you in place whereas being ‘wrong’ forces you to explore (Jevons, 1958); this understanding has clear links to the generation of creative ideas, where exploration is thought to be a key driver. Empirical research drawing similar conclusions has examined innovation in numerous different settings including mock juries, boardrooms and academic seminars and found a paradoxical truth (Nemeth, 1995). From this research it was understood that creative ideas were more likely to emerge in environments
99 which contain a certain amount of error, the conclusion being that the best innovation labs are always a little contaminated (Nemeth, 1995).
In order to maximise creative idea generation it is therefore likely that organisations need to leave a certain degree of space for generative error in their operations (Jevons, 1958; Nemeth, 1995; Johnson, 2010). It is accepted that too much error is costly and time consuming, but mistakes are said to be an inevitable step on the creative path (Catmull, 2008; Baréz-Brown, 2006, 2009). Empirical research already conducted into this issue (Nemeth, 1995) adds significant substance to this understanding with it being noted that innovative environments thrive on error and suffer when formal quality or risk management processes overwhelm them (Nemeth, 1995; Hitt et al, 1996; Busco et al, 2012). Interestingly, researchers do not argue for the absence of managerial control, it is instead suggested that control processes should not overwhelm creative thought (Leonard and Swap, 2005; Busco et al, 2012). This synthesis would not be complete without reference to the work of Staber (2008) which presents a similar view that imperfections in perception, communication and so forth should be celebrated as a source of new variation within the idea generation process. Fundamentally, error is thought to support creative idea generation rather than undermine it.
Moving on from the notion of error it is suggested that organisations need to model themselves on the dynamics of intelligence (Robinson, 2001). This understanding argues that many organisations stifle creative idea generation by putting rigid structures in place and promoting a conformist ethos. The argument develops with the suggestion that environments that discourage ideas
100 cause the creative impulse to do one of two things; desert or subvert authority (Robinson, 2001). Creativity is argued to be ever present in a latent capacity whether it is encouraged or not, and can either work for or against an organisation (Robinson, 2001).
Notions that creative idea generation can be influenced by the work environment appear relatively widely in the literature (see, for example Amabile et al, 1996; Park, 2005; Amabile, 2006; Mayfield, 2009). In particular the seminal work of Amabile et al (1996) requires additional attention. This research studied over 12,000 cases which lends significant levels of internal validity and generalisability to the findings (Amabile et al, 1996). Ultimately the research produced a model exploring various factors in the work environment that can affect creativity; this is reproduced in figure 2.10.
101
Figure 2.10: Conceptual Model Underlying Assessment of Perceptions of the Work Environment for Creativity
Source: Amabile et al (1996) Page 1159.
Amabile et al’s (1996) model is split into three distinct parts, on the left are areas of the work environment that are believed to influence creativity, including autonomy/freedom, resources and organisational ‘impediments’. These then feed into what are termed ‘scales’, or specific elements of these factors that are believed to influence the production of creative ideas. Clear links can be made between this model developed from rigorous, empirical research and further contributions discussed in this part of the chapter (Sinetar, 1985; Robinson, 2001; Park, 2005; Mayfield, 2009). It could perhaps be instructive to use the
102 understanding developed through this particular model (Amabile et al, 1996) to, at least in part, guide the fieldwork phase of this study.
A final element of theory which merits consideration here surrounds the notion that work environments which hope to encourage creativity must be ‘safe’ (Kiljn and Tomic, 2010). This idea is based on a similar foundation to that of other, practitioner sources (Catmull, 2008; Baréz-Brown, 2006 & 2009) which, as previously mentioned, discuss error and the fact that mistakes are an inevitable step on the creative path. It must again be stated that this particular source (Kiljn and Tomic, 2010) does not engage with empirical research, rather the journal article presents a critical literature review, examining sources within the creativity field published since 1985. This somewhat limits the contribution of this work as the argument is purely theoretical rather than being based on primary evidence. This said, the paper provides a useful foundation for further work, such as this study. Moving back to the argument at hand, the definition of a ‘safe’ environment is thought to be a space where team members feel able to present new ideas as they will not be ridiculed or criticised (Klijn and Tomic, 2010). This understanding is reinforced when examining the environment within Pixar (Catmull, 2008), where this organisation utilises a ‘creative brain trust’ or safe space within which creative thoughts can be discussed and improved.
Pixar’s creative brain trust consists of the company directors along with the producers of a particular film and anyone with relevant expertise (e.g. a computer animation specialist). The group watch the current version of a project and then engage in a give and take discussion which revolves around refining the ideas and tackling specific issues. This arrangement is thought to
103 work successfully because there is no ‘ego’ and every member is invested in helping the organisation turn out a polished final product (Catmull, 2008). It is thought that the problem solving powers of this particular group arrangement are immense and have helped the organisation to grow and develop (Catmull, 2008). Evidence, in the form of Pixar’s creative output would seem to support this assertion (Pixar, 2012b).
Evidence presented in this part of the literature review tends to suggest that the environment created inside an organisation has a powerful bearing on its ability to be creative (Jevons, 1985; Nemeth, 1995; Amabile et al, 1996; Catmull, 2008; Johnson, 2010). Discussions have helped to build an understanding of what an environment that produces many creative ideas might look like. Environments which support creative idea generation should arguably;
Provide a degree of autonomy or freedom
Have a structure which enables communication between different individuals
Encourage individuals to think differently
Tolerate a degree of ‘error’ and use this to drive ideas forwards
Allow individuals physical and mental ‘space’ to tap into their creative thoughts
Connect rather than protect new ideas
Be open to new sources of information (both external and internal to the organisation)
104