Managing Creativity: A Critical Examination, Synthesis, and New Frontiers
Author | Barbara Slavich,Silviya Svejenova |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12078 |
Published date | 01 December 2016 |
Date | 01 December 2016 |
Managing Creativity: A Critical Examination,
Synthesis, and New Frontiers
BARBARA SLAVICH
1
and SILVIYA SVEJENOVA
2
1
IÉSEG School of Management (LEM –CNRS), Paris, France
2
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark; and BI Norwegian Business School, Norway
This articleaims at providing definitionalclarity on creativityand a systematic understandingof its management in
organizations. By drawingon the results of a content analysis of creativitydefinitions in 440 scholarly publicationsin
the field of management between 1990 and 2014, this study clarifies how scholars in the management domainhave
defined the conceptand identifies core categoriesshared by these definitions.It also brings together these conceptual
categories into an integrative multilevel framework of relevance for managing creativity in organizations. The
framework outlines a view of managing creativity, which involves managing interconnected processes as well as
dualities, such as processes-outcomes, individuals-collectives, and permanent-temporary creativity units. Finally, it
paves the way to new research frontiers for the domain.
Keywords: managingcreativity; creativity definitions; content analysis; multilevel framework; research frontiers
Introduction
In the past years, research across several disciplinesin the
management field has highlighted that managing
creativity is essential to achieve important organizational
outcomes, such as innovation, growth and success
(Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Zhou & Hoever, 2014). The
global financial crisis and related economic downturn
have revitalized the interest in creativity beyond the
scholarly domain, to that of management, as manifested
by the growing number of articles in business magazines
(e.g., BusinessWeek,Forbes,Fortune), practitioner
journals (e.g., California Management Review,Harvard
Business Review,MIT Sloan Management Review), and
consultants’publications (e.g. BCG, McKinsey,
Strategos). For example, an analysis of 1,500 interviews
conducted by IBM with CEOs from companies across
60 countries representing 33 industries have pointed to
creativity as the key leadership competence that can help
firms produce innovative outcomes and overcome
challenges associated with the growing complexity and
volatility of the business environment (IBM Institute for
Innovation, 2010). Shifts of organizational structures
toward flatter, more flexible, team-based models with
distributed leadership (e.g., Appelbaum & Blatt, 1994;
Ilgen, 1999),as well as practical approaches to conceiving
original ideas, such as design thinking, promote
companies’quest for new ways of fostering creativity
and bring to life effective alternatives to traditional ways
of conceivingbusiness (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Sawyer,
2007; Brown,2008). These changes and trendsemphasize
creativity’s role in cre ating value for organizat ions, as well
as for economic recovery and growth.
Scholars have sought to identify creativity’s
wellsprings (Shalley et al., 2004; Zhou & Shalley,
2003), looking for social and organizational elements
associated withit, such as employees’discretion to switch
between different tasks, leadership style, supervisors’
expectations of creativity, coworkers’behavior, creative
climate, and team characteristics (e.g., George, 2007;
Shalley & Zhou,2008; Zhou & Hoever, 2014). They have
examined creativity through different lenses and at
different levels of analysis, as well as across several
disciplines within the business and management sciences
(Simonton, 1999; Shalley et al., 2004; Hargadon &
Bechky, 2006; Cattani & Ferriani, 2008; Sosa, 2011).
Since creativity studies have tended to take either an
actor-centered or a context-centered approach, several
reviews have attempted to clarify creativity as a concept
and to bring together some of the disparate views
(e.g., George, 2007; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). However,
Correspondence: Barbara Slavich, IESEG School of Management
(LEM –CNRS), 1 Parvisde la Défense, 92044 Paris-La Défense,France,
Tel: +33 (0)1 55 91 10 10. E-mail: b.slavich@ieseg.fr
European Management Review, Vol. 13, 237–250, (2016)
DOI: 10.1111/emre.12078
©2016 European Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial