Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace: A Case Study

Introduction

The importance of creativity and innovation in the workplace is well documented, but the debate over nature versus nurture continues, with some authorities maintaining that people are born with attributes such as creativity and innovation while others argue that such attributes can be cultivated over time (Furnham & Heaven, 1999). To determine the facts in these matters, this case study examines the relevant literature to gain fresh insights concerning how creativity and innovation can be most effectively stimulated, supported, and sustained within a given organization. A summary of the research and its important findings are presented in the conclusion.

Defining Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace

Companies of all types and sizes are currently attempting to gain a competitive edge through creativity and innovation. Creativity in the workplace is defined by Garrison, Harvey, and Napier (2008) as "the production of ideas, products, or procedures that are (a) novel or original; (b) appropriate for the time and place; and (c) potentially useful to the employing organization" (p. 21). The concept of creativity in the workplace includes (a) generating new ways to perform work, (b) identifying novel procedures or innovative ideas, or (c) reconfiguring known approaches into new alternatives (Garrison et al., 2008). The two defining characteristics of creativity in the workplace relate to its context — which is becoming increasingly global in nature — and its potential applications, which all involve some type of added value. These defining characteristics are described by Garrison and his associates as follows: "Creativity, then, focuses on the process of coming up with original ideas that fit the global context and have value, and on outcomes, which can be new products, services, processes, or structures" (p. 22).

Notwithstanding these positive connotations, it is also important to recognize the potentially negative connotations that words such as "creativity" can carry in the workplace. In this regard, Devine (2006) emphasizes that "In the workplace, creativity often has a pejorative meaning stemming from the popular notion that it equates to 'arty,' which for many corporate managers or lead foremen conjures up images of berets and feathers and dissolute, impulsive, and irresponsible behavior" (p. 8). Citing the example of "creative accounting" with respect to Enron, Devine explains that creativity and innovation go sufficiently hand in hand that the terms can be used virtually interchangeably, particularly if the change in terminology will help convince managers of the need for creativity in the workplace. According to Devine, "Change the word from creativity to innovation, however, and managerial shoulders might begin to relax considerably around the workplace. No matter what the term, creativity in the workplace is here to stay, and in globally competitive organizations, creativity occurs in every department at every level" (2006, p. 9).

In many cases, job design can have an enormous effect on creativity and innovation. In some cases, rank-and-file employees are relegated to mind-numbingly repetitive jobs characterized by assembly-line repetition — jobs that leave little or no room for creativity or innovative thought. According to Roth (1999), as more and more employees are freed from these types of repetitious jobs, they will enjoy more time for activities that contribute to creativity and innovative thought. In this regard, Roth emphasizes that "When machines take over increasing numbers of the repetitious functions in primary production and service industries, more people will become involved in R&D efforts, a type of developmental work that will benefit the bottom line while, at the same time, unleashing individual creativity by providing stimulation and challenge" (p. 161).

Job Design, Work Environment, and Leadership

Other authorities suggest that not only job design, but the environment in which employees work can affect the creative process. Clements-Croome (2000) notes that most business settings have not been designed with the needs of employees in mind, but have instead been focused on portraying an image of power and authority: "It occurs to me that the desire to create an environment which is conducive to creative and productive work indicates quite a radical shift in the whole philosophy of work and the workplace. Work and the workplace, for the great majority of people, have not been instigated, designed, begun, and built with the workers themselves in mind" (p. 18). Fortunately, it is possible to design buildings that facilitate the creative process in ways that can lead to innovation and increased profitability (Clements-Croome, 2000). Beyond physical space, Cangemi, Davis, Sand, and Lott (2011) also report that organizational leaders are well positioned to create a workplace environment that facilitates creative thinking and processes. According to these authorities, "The creativity-oriented leader must develop an environment conducive to out-of-the-box thinking to find more creative solutions to organization problems and competition" (Cangemi et al., 2011, p. 27).

Many leaders, however, are uncomfortable introducing potentially destabilizing elements into their managerial comfort zones. Cangemi and his associates maintain that a new type of leadership is needed to help organizations become "unstuck" from their existing inflexible bureaucracies and move toward more nimble frameworks that are more responsive to environmental change. As they note, "Indeed, creating an organizational environment where there is freedom to think is stimulating, rewarding, and fulfilling — and requires a different type of leader, one with a different mentality — certainly quite different from the savior-oriented leader and different from the stability-oriented leader" (p. 28).

In an increasingly globalized and competitive marketplace, Cangemi and his colleagues conclude that nothing short of achieving this level of informed leadership will provide companies with the competitive advantage they need to survive. As Cangemi et al. emphasize, "In today's global economy, a third stage, creative-competitive oriented leadership is required to ensure an organization will compete and move to its optimum, most competitive level in the marketplace. Today, organizations must reach the third level of leadership to really compete in this global economy" (2011, p. 28). Achieving this level of competitiveness requires a corporate culture that places a high value on creative thought and that helps direct such thought toward value-added activities capable of improving the organization's performance and profitability (Cangemi et al., 2011).

Achieving this level of competitiveness may also require some fundamental changes to the way employees are rewarded for time spent in creative pursuits. Performance appraisals that are rigidly tied to productivity and goal achievement ignore the potential contributions that creative processes can provide. In this regard, Bujak (2003) recommends that truly fostering creativity in the workplace demands a reevaluation of existing business processes and job designs: "A blindly accepted practice, using productivity indexing to judge work performance, is a hindrance to adaptability. Productivity indexing is often a major impediment to creativity in the workplace because it forces individuals to emulate already existing approaches and prevents creating new ways of organizing and redesigning work processes" (p. 4).

Finally, a growing body of research indicates that there is an inextricable association between curiosity and creativity. Garrison and his associates report that "Curiosity is the engine that drives creativity; and when nurtured, curiosity promotes creativity and innovativeness" (2008, p. 22). Enhanced organizational creativity therefore provides the framework needed to encourage risk-taking, creative thought, and experimentation in ways that help enterprises gain a competitive advantage over their less creative and innovative counterparts (Garrison et al., 2008).

Conclusion

The research showed that creativity and the innovation it can produce in the workplace has become the focus of an increasing amount of attention from organizational researchers in recent years. The research also showed that there was good reason for this additional attention, because creativity can provide companies of all types and sizes with the competitive advantage they need in an increasingly globalized and competitive marketplace. Creativity in the workplace was shown to include the development of processes that are novel or original, contextually appropriate, and capable of adding value to an organization. In addition, workplace creativity also encompasses outcomes such as generating new ways to perform work, identifying novel procedures or innovative ideas, and reconfiguring known approaches into new alternatives. In sum, the two defining characteristics of creativity in the workplace relate to context and the potential for contributing to an organization's bottom line. Leaders who understand this — and who structure their organizations to reward, nurture, and celebrate creative thought — will be best positioned to compete in the dynamic global economy of today and tomorrow.