5.6 Organizational Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and innovation (C&I) are widely recognized as important aspects of human functioning at all levels ‑ individual, group, organizational, and societal. Over the last four decades, researchers and theorists from psychology (e.g., Guilford), sociology (e.g., Merton), economics (e.g., Mansfield), and many other disciplines have written about the causes and consequences of C&I in a variety of settings.

C&I are generally considered important for a healthy national economy and for increasing the quality of life. To meet the future needs facing the world, large investments of resources will be required to produce and implement creative solutions. However, because of the way societies are structured, much of the impetus for C&I will have to originate within complex organizations.

Of all the areas studied in relation to C&I, complex organizations have received considerable attention. Much of this attention can be attributed to the needs and values of organizational researchers. However, organizations themselves clearly have a stake in C&I research. Organizational growth and even survival can be tied directly to an organization's ability to produce (or adopt) and implement new services, products or processes.

The literature is replete with case studies detailing how organizations that ignored new technological advancements, for example, began a slow death spiral. Starbuck describes one case involving a manufacturer of mechanical calculators that refused to acknowledge the competitive impact of electronic calculators. The result was predictable: profits declined steadily until the company was bought out and restructured to emphasize electronic calculators.

In spite of the importance attributed to organizational C&I, the empirical research has been somewhat spotty and less than conclusive. After reviewing close to 100 major books and articles on organizational C&I, Gundy found that at least ten general conclusions can be drawn:

1.    The terms "creativity" and "innovation" often are used interchangeably, thus making comparative distinctions difficult. Publications that do make a distinction frequently lack agreement on how to define creativity and innovation.

2.    The majority of the empirical research literature deals exclusively with organizational innovation. The literature identifying itself with organizational creativity is largely nonempirical and concerned mostly with prescriptions for needed climate variables (e.g., Cummings, 1965). The majority of empirical creativity research is limited to studies of intragroup creativity (e.g., the literature on brainstorming) and personality traits and characteristics of individuals.

3.    Most of the research on organizational innovation deals either with the adoption or individual diffusion of innovations. Very few large‑scale studies of entire innovation process exist.

4.    The focus of most innovation research has involved correlating structural aspects of organizations with composite measures of innovation.

5.    Unitary models of innovation have dominated previous research. This research has largely ignored the existence of organizational C&I occurring within different organizational subsystems at different times. Instead, some research studies seem to assume that organizations are either innovative or they are not.

6.    Innovation typically is considered to be a positive attribute of organizational functioning. Although this view probably reflects die values of many researchers, the negative aspects of innovation also are important for understanding the innovation process.

7.    The broad study of organizational innovation as a process similar to all organizations is giving way to the study of specific innovations in specific organizations.

8.    In most organizations, the innovation process is more evolutionary than re­volutionary. Most innovations are diffused, and im­plemented at a relatively slow pace. Radical innovations are rare, but do occur when conditions warrant them (e.g., during situations perceived as survival threatening, or what Knight refers to as "distress innovations”).

9.    Organizations designed along bureaucratic lines are highly resistant to innovations and often fail to foster conditions conducive to creativity. Alternative organizational structures (such as matrix systems) and new managerial philosophies, however, are helping to counteract this resistance.