IN
DEGREE PROJECT
TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
,
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019
Collective Creativity as a
driver for innovation:
A qualitative multiple case study analysis of the
phenomena of Collective Creativity within
innovation-driven environments
FRANZISKA VON TEMPSKI
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Title
Collective Creativity as a driver for innovation:
A qualitative multiple case study analysis of the phenomena of
Collective Creativity within innovation-driven environments
Author
Franziska von Tempski, frvt@kth.se
Submitted for the Completion of the KTH Program;
Media Management, Master of Science in Computer Science and Engineering
Supervisor: Christopher Rosenqvist, Stockholm School of Economics, Department of
Marketing and Strategy
ABSTRACT
In our today’s fast-paced and rapidly changing world, innovation became a crucial factor for economic growth and organizational effectiveness [35,37]. Several factors promoting innovation have been discussed in literature, mostly focusing on individual creativity as its main driver. However, the growing interdisciplinarity and complexity of today’s challenges urge for broader knowledge basis and specialized expertise at the same time [17]. This makes the creative potential of a single talent no longer sufficient enough to create the multidisciplinary novel solutions that are needed. Leading innovation companies such as Google have therefore shown that innovation results from a creative collective working together by combining everyone’s “slice of genius” [20:4]. Yet, research on Collective Creativity (CC) is still limited. Just as innovation or creativity itself, it is a process that does not happen automatically, but which needs to be supported and maintained. However, a holistic and comprehensive model of how such a collective creative environment can be promoted is still missing. Therefore, this study aims at analyzing the phenomena of CC in more detail by answering the research question of this studies: What are the factors that contribute to the development of Collective Creativity in an innovation-driven environment?
On the basis of an extensive literature analysis, an integrative framework has been developed to identify the factors by which a creative collective environment is performed. Secondly, a multiple case study analysis of the two leading innovation companies Pixar Animation Studios and Volkswagen has been conducted to test the prior developed framework’s validity and refine it with in-depth insights from the field. Combining the findings of both analyses, a comprehensive exploratory framework has been developed that provides an overarching guideline of the factors that should to be considered when practicing CC. Besides the practical implications of this research for both, leadership and teamwork, it further contributes to an advanced understanding of this so far little researched phenomena and presents directions for future studies.
SAMMANFATTNING:
I dagens ständigt skiftande värld är innovation en avgörande faktor för ekonomisk tillväxt och organisatorisk effektivitet [35,37]. Flera faktorer som främjar denna innovation återfinns i litteraturen, främst inom området ’individuell kreativitet’ som den huvudsakliga drivkraften. Den växande tvärvetenskapen kräver dock en bredare kunskapsbas och specialkunskaper [17]. Detta gör den kreativa potentialen hos en enda talang inte längre tillräcklig för att skapa de tvärvetenskapliga romanlösningar som behövs. Ledande innovationsföretag som Google har därför visat innovationsresultat från ett kreativt kollektiv som genom att kombinera allas ”snitt av geni” [20:4]. Ändå är forskningen om kollektiv kreativitet (CC) fortfarande begränsad. Precis som innovation eller kreativitet i sig är det en process som behöver stödjas och underhållas. En heltäckande och övergripande modell för hur en sådan kollektiv kreativ miljö kan se ut saknas fortfarande [6]. Därför syftar denna studie till att analysera fenomenen (CC) mer detaljerat genom att svara på frågeställningen i dessa studier: Vilka är de faktorer som bidrar till utvecklingen av kollektiv kreativitet i en innovations drivande miljö?
Genom en omfattande litteraturanalys har en integrerad ram utvecklats för att identifiera de faktorer genom vulkanen kreativ kollektiv miljö utförs. För det andra har har en flerfallstudieanalys av de två ledande innovationsbolagen Pixar Animation Studios och Volkswagen genomförts för att testa den tidigare utvecklande rammens validitet och förfina den med djupgående insikter från området. Genom att kombinera resultaten från båda analyserna har en omfattande undersökningsram utvecklats som ger en övergripande riktlinje över de faktorer som bör beaktas vid utförande av (CC). Förutom det praktiska konsekvenserna av denna forskning för både ledarskap och lagarbete bidrar det vidare till en avancerad förstående av det hittills otillräckligt undersökta fenomenet och ger vägledning för framtida studier.
KEYWORDS:
Collective Creativity as a driver for innovation:
A qualitative multiple case study analysis of the phenomena of Collective Creativity
within innovation-driven environments
Franziska von Tempski
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Brinelvägen 8, Stockholm, Sweden frvt@kth.se
ABSTRACT
In our today’s fast-paced and rapidly changing world, innovation became a crucial factor for economic growth and organizational effectiveness [35,37]. Several factors promoting innovation have been discussed in literature, mostly focusing on individual creativity as its main driver. However, the growing interdisciplinarity and complexity of today’s challenges urge for broader knowledge basis and specialized expertise at the same time [17]. This makes the creative potential of a single talent no longer sufficient enough to create the multidisciplinary novel solutions that are needed. Leading innovation companies such as Google have therefore shown that innovation results from a creative collective working together by combining everyone’s “slice of genius” [20:4]. Yet, research on Collective Creativity (CC) is still limited. Just as innovation or creativity itself, it is a process that does not happen automatically, but which needs to be supported and maintained. However, a holistic and comprehensive model of how such a collective creative environment can be promoted is still missing. Therefore, this study aims at analyzing the phenomena of CC in more detail by answering the research question of this studies: What are
the factors that contribute to the development of Collective Creativity in an innovation-driven environment?
On the basis of an extensive literature analysis, an integrative framework has been developed to identify the factors by which a creative collective environment is performed. Secondly, a multiple case study analysis of the two leading innovation companies Pixar Animation Studios and Volkswagen has been conducted to test the prior developed framework’s validity and refine it with in-depth insights from the field. Combining the findings of both analyses, a comprehensive exploratory framework has been developed that provides an overarching guideline of the factors that should to be considered when practicing CC. Besides the practical implications of this research for both, leadership and teamwork, it further contributes to an advanced understanding of this so far little researched phenomena and presents directions for future studies. Keywords: Collective Creativity, Innovation
INTRODUCTION
Along with the rise of new digital technologies by almost every day, today’s innovation processes are increasingly challenged with shortened product lifecycles, high demand on time to market and increasing competition [14]. This resulted in shrank innovation cycles which adds additional
pressure to organizations to generate novelty faster and more efficiently [20].
With this growing importance of innovation, much attention has been given to its development [37]. Creativity as the first stage of every innovation process is therefore considered as its main driver [22,37]. It is defined as an important organizational capability, a source of their effectiveness and their competitive advantage [2,43]. Given its great relevance, the concept and process of creativity has been well studied within the past years. However, most of those studies have foremost focused on creativity as an isolated trait of individuals only [4,27,35]. Contrary to that, the success of leading innovation companies such as Google emphasize the need to study creativity from a collaborative approach [20]. Their success in using creativity as a collective good unfolds that innovation is not a product of a solo creative genius [ibid.]. Tidd and Bessant [39] argue that companies are even more likely to fail utilizing their full innovation potential when relying on certain talents only. In fact, innovation is predicted to happen when everyone’s slice of genius is combined [20]. It develops when knowledge boundaries between different disciplines and specialization are merged together, which is commonly known under the phenomenon of Collective Creativity [27].
CC is based on the notion that creativity “occurs as a confluence of ideas from multiple sources” [14:4], which evokes from social interactions that trigger new forms of interpretation and discoveries that could not be generated by an individual alone. However, neither the creativity of an individual, nor the one of a group happens automatically [27]. It has to be maintained and supported by creating an environment that brings different knowledge sets together and motivates them to construct collectively a response to a particular problem [8].
Given the fact that CC has been successfully used by leading companies to become, stay or foster innovation and the fact that the growing complexity of our today’s problems calls for solutions that combine different sets of expertise, research on this phenomenon is still limited [6,7]. This makes it difficult for both, researchers and practitioners, to deal with its complex design process [4]. By analyzing how CC has successfully been practiced by different organizations, this study aims to help filling this research gap by examining the factors that promote the development of CC in an innovation-driven environment.
RELATED LITERATURE
core competence for maintaining economic growth and organizational competitiveness [37]. Although both relate to the generation of ideas as identical, concepts, both differ in their given purpose [28]. Whilst creativity refers to the ideation process with the aim of generating a variety of ideas, innovation defines the implementation stage of a specific idea that has been successfully transformed and applied to solve a particular problem [23,28]. Considering creativity as the basis for every innovation, recent studies stress the potential of collectively practiced creativity in terms of innovative outcomes. Therefore, the following section expands on the related literature and research in more detail and examines on the concepts of innovation, creativity and collective creativity.
Competitive Advantage through Team-Innovation
In our today’s rapidly transforming world, innovation became a critical factor to become and stay successful [9]. Innovation is defined “as a generic concept” [35:685] that has been researched with a strong focus on individual traits and attributes as its promoting factors. However, reviewing recent innovation literature reveals a great potential of assessing innovation as an organizational team performance [25,31]. According to Somech & Drach-Zahavy [35], novelty is more likely to develop from a group of people working together on the ideation process, instead of relying on single talents. Recent studies support those findings and emphasize on the importance of evaluating innovation from an interactional approach that combines organizational, situational and personal elements which jointly foster team creativity [35]. However, there is still a lack of research determining how organizations can foster their teams to “facilitate or inhibit innovation” [35:684].
Creativity as the fundamental base for Innovation
Creativity enables organizations to quickly react to environmental and contextual changes and turn those opportunities into economic advantages by providing innovative solutions [34]. Thus, creativity is characterized by a growing strategic relevance for sustaining novelty and a key competence every organization is pursuing to foster [7,21,23].
Although Castro et al. [10] criticize that there is no “consensual definition of creativity” [10:22], most studies refer to the term as the generation of ideas by (re-) combining different associations in novel and useful ways [2,24,35,36]. According to Byrne et al. [9], using multiple creative resources within the ideation process maximizes the creative potential of an organization. Similarly, Andriopoulos [6] identified a greater possibility for novelty to grow when having a broader variety of associations to develop from. Drawing on Amabile’s research from 1996, Castro et al. [10] supports those findings with his definition of creativity as a product of both, environmental and individual factors. In addition to that, Parjanen [27] classified the acknowledgment of personal and contextual factors as a crucial element for enhancing full creative potential.
However, despite this significant potential and intercorrelation of creativity and collectivism, there is a lack of an “holistic and functional representation” [6:839] of collectively practiced creativity [9].
Interactionist Model of Organizational Creativity by Woodman et al. (1993)
Woodman’s et al. [43] interactionist model of organization creativity underlines the need for a broader assessment of creativity. In their model, the researchers argue that innovation is the outcome of a complex interaction between people and situations. According to the researchers, innovation is not a simple combination of many individual’s creativity that is influenced by antecedent conditions, cognitive styles and abilities, personality factors, knowledge, motivation, social and contextual influences. Instead, creativity develops from a functional team composition, its characteristics and processes that either inhibit or create novelty and which refers to the phenomena of Collective Creativity (CC) [43].
Collective Creativity
Just as Woodman, Csikszentmihalyi’s [15] system vision of creativity locates creativity in the interaction between different individuals and knowledge fields that evolve from a “person’s thoughts and a sociocultural context” [15:65]. Creativity is thus defined at a collective level as a systemic phenomenon, rather than an individual outcome. Arising from collaboration, interaction and the exchange of ideas, Hargadon & Bechky [18] define CC as “a moment when individuals come together to find, redefine, and solve problems that no one, working alone, could have done as easily, if at all” [13,15,18:487,31]. It is defined as a “person-centered and collaborative” [9:257] mechanism for developing multidisciplinary solutions as an answer to our today’s increasingly interdisciplinary problems.
However, CC is not just a simple linear correlation of different creative minds. As stated by Bissola [7], it is an integrative process of individual skills, team dynamics and organizational factors that determine the performance quality of a collective. In order to successfully work together in such a collective, those factors need to be identified and understood, which has not been done in an extensive scope, yet [13]. This need for determining those factors is further emphasized by the fact that globalization led to an increased interdisciplinarity and complexity of today’s problems which call for a diverse and broad ideation process in order to be solved [7,21,42]. Yet, a comprehensive model that explains the phenomenon of CC and how it can be practiced is still missing [7,10].
RESEARCH QUESTION
Followingup on this prior outlined research gap, this study aims at investigating the phenomena of CC in more detail by identifying the factors by which it is practiced. Thus, the following research question for this exploratory study has been formulated:
RQ: What are the factors that contribute to the development of Collective Creativity in an innovation-driven environment?
METHOD
in a framework. Secondly, a multiple case study analysis was carried out to evaluate the framework’s validity and develop it further with additional insights from practice to an integrative, exploratory framework.
1. Literature Analysis
By conducting an advanced and exploratory search with the keyword “collective creativity”, 58 relevant research articles and papers have been retrieved from the databases KTH
Primo, Ecobinz and ResearchGate. Having this keyword in
either their titles, abstracts, keyword section or body texts, the retrieved papers were further analyzed on the basis of their summary, abstract, introduction, findings and limitations. More important, the relevance of those papers for this studies’ research question has been evaluated, revealing whether the examined factors contribute positively or negatively to the development of CC. After applying those filters, a total of 41 papers was analyzed and developed to an exploratory framework that aims at summarizing the different factors and its variables that literature and past studies have found to enable CC to flourish.
2. Multiple Case Study Analysis
In the second step of this research, the prior developed framework has been evaluated and refined by analyzing how companies have practiced CC. Therefore, a multiple-case study analysis qualified itself as most suitable since it is a well-established research method for studies (1) with little control given over the behavioral events happening, (2) when the “study focuses on a contemporary phenomenon in its real world-context” [44:2] and where the (3) “boundaries between a phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident” [44:2]. Furthermore, such an analysis is considered as an effective method to retrieve a deeper understanding of a complex social or organizational phenomena, and is supposed to contribute to the existing knowledge about it [44]. Hence, the method focuses on retraining a “holistic and real-world perspective as it is the case in studying organizational and managerial processes” [44:4]. The present study can be characterized by all of those conditions.
Due to research economical reasons, the material used for the multiple case analysis was retrieved from external information sources. The cases were carefully chosen on the basis of (1) their focus on and their level of practice of CC, (2) their intention of using CC to foster innovative solutions, (3) the results of their performance of CC as well as by (4) the quality and quantity of the data available. Based on these criteria, the business cases of Pixar Animation
Studios and Volkswagen (VW) have been evaluated as
suitable for conducting this analysis. Since the case study method does not follow the common sampling logic, the determination of the sample size by using a power analysis is not required. Instead, the number of cases needed to answer the research question sufficiently is defined by the question of how many literal and theoretical cases are desired to have in the study [44].
Detailed data about those cases has been used and retrieved from interviews with and articles from leading members of those companies, published in Harvard Business Review and a long-term study conducted by Harvard Professor Linda Hill. She interviewed and observed both companies for half a decade, investigating their success factors for innovation and the role of collectivism in it. Her findings, as well as parts of the retrieved data, have been published
in her book “Collective Genius” and became thereby accessible for further use and studies.
These multiple sources provided comprehensive, valuable and in-depth data for the chosen business cases and answer to this study’s research question. By using multiple case studies as well as several data sources, the validity can strengthens since it provides “multiple measures of the same phenomenon” [44:92].
RESULTS
1. Literature Analysis
Based on the conducted literature analysis, the following four key factors and their variables were identified to foster the creation of a collective creative environment. They have been summarized in an exploratory framework under figure 1 and will be explained in more detail in the following section.
(1) Encouraging and Co-Creational Leadership
As much as creativity and innovativeness itself, a collective creative needs an encouraging environment that supports taking risks to develop greater outcome [6,9,10,29,35,40,43]. According to Parjanen [27], creating such a context is a leader’s responsibility which makes it a substantial factor for promoting CC. Therefore, Woodman [43], Andriopoulos [6], Byrne et al. [9] and Parajanen [27] recommend a democratic, de-centralized and participatory leadership style instead of following the traditional path of full autocracy since close supervision could hinder creativity. Moreover, Ahonen et al. [1] and Byrne et al. [9] analyzed that leaders need the ability to find the right balance between excessive guidance and infinite freedom of action. They need to provide just enough freedom and responsibility to let their teams’ full creative potential unfold, while at the same time, give enough direction, stability, clarification and coordination to keep the group task-orientated [7,9]. Hence, as suggested by Paloniemi & Colling [26] and Parjanen et al. [28], leaders should follow a co-coordinated leadership style with a balanced relationship and division of power between leaders and their teams. Moreover, they should act as brokers that moderate their teams in a supportive, caring way on the basis of mutual trust [1,28]. Support and encouragement thereby refer to the “expectation, approval, and practical support for attempts to introduce new” [35:690] ideas. This way, a work system should be created in which everyone feels safe and motivated to freely experiment with their creativity without being worried about negative consequences [22].
(2) Flat and Open Organizational Structure
Williams [42] and Andriopoulos [6] stress that a flat organizational structure fosters a creative collective environment. It prevents interaction barriers and facilitates equal opportunities for every team member to freely develop and express ideas without the restriction of hierarchical orders. Additionally, Andriopoulos [6] emphasizes on practicing great flexibility and full autonomy since enable to make decisions at all organizational levels.
(3) Diverse and Dynamic Work Culture Heterogeneous diversity
Team composition is a crucial factor for CC to develop since it fully determines the level of creativity and the final outcome [35]. Since today’s innovation challenges became more multifaceted and interdependence in their nature, a team’s array of expertise, knowledge and skills is needed to be just as diverse [9,35]. Therefore, heterogeneous groups with diverse but overlapping knowledge domains and skills are required [29]. Despite this disciplinary variety, Puccio et al. [32] and Paulus & Brown [30] stress the positive effect of cultural and psychological diversity on CC. Since new ideas develop on the basis of an individual’s prior knowledge and experience, adding new information, different perspectives and contrasting ways of thinking enables the detection of “new linkages between previously unrelated units of knowledge” [27:118]. This, in turn, leads to a generation of more divergent solutions which Hargadon and Becky [18] describes as “reflective reframing”.
Unbiased dynamic interactions and knowledge transfer
In order to manage and facilitate communication within a diverse creative collective, a mutual language needs to be implemented [35]. This implies open-flow communication with mutual and flat-structured interactions to enable the exchange of knowledge at all times [6,19,25,38]. Therefore, team members should be unbiased in terms of potential outcomes and be willing to influence and be influenced by others [25].
Work Culture
Scholars have emphasized the significant impact of work culture on creativity and innovation [9]. In order to create such a collective creative work culture, mutual trust, openness and participative safety have to be established [6,13,19,27,29,35]. People need to feel safe to take risks when thinking beyond and share their thoughts without any form of (self-)censorship, so that ideas can be exchanged and build up on [6,19,21,25,27].
In addition to that, research has shown that an innovation encouraging and supporting work climate, regular constructive feedback on work performance as well as rewards, increase people’s commitment and motivation to engage in the creative process [2,19,21,35,42,43]. The provided feedback needs to be right timed though since it can hinder creativity when given too early [9]. Isaksen & Ekvall [21] further suggest establishing a work culture where team members are constantly challenged since a high involvement fosters the “level of engagement, commitment and motivation” [21:76]. Moreover, studies have shown that CC is positively influenced by a positive peer and supervisor relationship that supports playfulness and humor [21]. However, a certain level of debate and conflict has been identified as being as important since “conflict of perspectives generated by the heterogeneity is the necessary ingredient for innovation" [41:95][5,8,25,30,35,38].
(4) Collaborative Work environment
Previous studies have shown that a team’s impact on an innovation process highly depends not only on contextual, but environmental factors [5,35]. In order for CC to develop, access to a diverse and changing physical, digital and social collaborative space should be provided [16,40]. This space should differ from the regular work environment and communicate an atmosphere that supports “a flow of ideas and energy with little concern for either order or control.” [40:340]. Additionally, regular changes of stimuli in their work environment, such as a variety of different workspaces or the arrangement of departments, as well as additional stimuli available, such as books, material or
objects, are important factors to inspire a team [6, 16, 40]. Parjanen [27] further highlights the productivity of inofficial meetings, such as coffee breaks or corridor discussions, since there is no set time for new ideas to occur.
2. Case Study Analysis Pixar Animation Studio
Initial Situation and Challenges
Pixar Animation Studios has been a technological pioneer in
computer animated movies since the early 90s. Ever since they created the world’s first computer animated feature film Toy Story in 1995, the studio kept pushing the limits of computer [20].
Ed Catmull, Pixar Co-founder and president locates the studio’s unique track record in their “adherence to a set of
principles and practices for managing creative talent and risk is responsible” [11]. All of Pixar’s activities rely on their
conviction that great minds are more important than great ideas. Catmull further explains that their core principle is not to focus
“so much on an idea as focusing on a community of creative people with creative leadership as there was somebody guiding this.” [12]
This philosophy is reflectedin every of their productions. None of their movies is based on only a single idea, but on a group of multiple people who generate thousands of ideas that all go into the movie. Thus, Catmull further evaluates that
“people are the most important things, because they’re the ones that have to solve the problems and come up with the thousands of ideas that finally come together.” [12]
However, in order to deliver a final movie, those ideas need to be organized, carefully evaluated, and final decisions must be made. How this process looks like in a collective creative environment like Pixar’s’ will be explained by the following case situations.
Case Situation One: The sideward glance
One of Pixar’s work routines to foster greater collaboration are “Dailies”. In those short scrum meetings, all Pixar staff - independent of their job position - gathers to present and see the work in progress of each other [20]. This way, people get direct “feedback and guidance on their work” [20:17]. Moreover, it encourages the sense of community and creativity by making everyone see how all pieces of work are related and connected to each other [20].
In one of those dailies for a CG production, one of the studio’s animator proposed to add a sideward glance and a slightly arched eyebrow to a character based on his interpretation of the figure. Although it was just a small change, the impact on the character’s perception would have been significant. The director, as the final decision maker, did not share this interpretation and did therefore not approve of the new character elements in first place. However, after further idea iterations, he did not resist to admit that he was wrong and that it indeed made the character richer [20].
The observations of this case situation by Hill (20) exemplify Pixar’s work philosophy and factors to develop novelty in a collective well. Everyone at the studio knows that stories only get better by iterating ideas, involving
many divergent minds and trying different approaches that might seem to be incompatible at first. Therefore, trail, mistakes and failure are seen as a necessary part of the process in which everyone is encouraged to share their thoughts, regardless of their position within the studio [20]. Moreover, it reflects the open and flat communication structure practiced at the studio. Catmull explains that sharing and discussing (controversial) ideas is the foundation of a productively working collective. This requires an environment where everyone feels motivated to openly share their ideas, thoughts and opinions, according to the co-founder [20]. Furthermore, the studio wants everyone to feel safe to address problems or negative feedback at any time to everyone. This implies honesty, which is another of Pixar’s core values. In his interview with Harvard Business Review, Catmull underlines that there are no penalties when sharing your ideas or providing feedback, which is why “people are more likely to say what they think.” [12]. At the studio, they promote an open-door policy, which Catmull describes as not having his door open for everyone at all times, but as “everyone’s door is open” [12].
In this context, trust in and respect for other and their work are further principles practiced by the studio to enable CC. Seeing each other as equals and each other’s work as equally important to the studio is crucial to make everyone work effectively with another. This mindset is especially important when it comes to discussing each other’s ideas. Since such debates can get intense with a diverse group of people working together, everyone should focus on what Hill [20] describes as “constructive disagreement” [20:29]. In those situations, a leader is needed who can manage and balance tension fairly by making “sure the disapproval of
more experienced expert members didn’t smother dissension, minority viewpoints, or the fresh perspectives of the inexperienced or the newcomer” [20:29]. Such an
environment cannot be created though. In his article for the Harvard Business Review about CC at Pixar Animation
Studio, Catmull argues that trust and respect cannot be
“mandate; they must be earned over time.” [11].
This unfastened communication structure is not to be confused with the organizational structure. Although everyone is encouraged to speak and share freely regardless of their job position, (12) leaders in form of directors are still needed to provide clear vision, guidance and decision making in order to keep the team task- and timeline-orientated. However, the organizational structure of Pixar is not hierarchical in a traditional form. In order to make the right decision, directors at Pixar need to hear “the sum of all those opinions [...] to select through the path of things that need to be done” and to combine those ideas that fit into the overall concept [12]. Thus, the decision power relies on the director, but is still a product of everyone's input.
Case Situation Two: RenderFarm Collision
although it was “just” a short, postponing the release of one of the movies was no option. Thus, an alternative was urgently needed [20].
As described in Hill’s [20] observations of this case situation, Brandeau reached out to and involved a diverse group of people from inside and outside the studio to retrieve, discuss and investigate different solutions. Therefore, he provoked and challenged their ideation process carefully but steadily in order to achieve the best results. After intense discussions and growing frustration due to the increasing time pressure, the team found a solution that has been introduced in the beginning already, but got rejected due to its its’ high level of logistical, organizational, and technological challenge. Through creative abrasion, which Hill describes as “a process in which potential solutions are created, explored and modified through debate and discourse” [20:138], Brandeau and his team finally decided on borrowing additional hundreds of computers from Disney’s RenderFarm and transport and install them to Pixar’s RenderFarm system [20].
Besides the strategic and tactical innovation of this solution, this case stresses the importance of debate and cognitive conflict in the process of CC. The aim was not to win, loose or dominate, but to learn and improve. The intense discussions between the diverse group of people coming from creative, technology and business that finally led to the solution have shown that healthy conflicts are needed to produce more and broader ideas. As stated by Pixar’s General Manager Jim Morris: “If you have no conflict [...] you’re going to have something that’s pretty average.” [20:141]. However, this requires people to distinguish intellectual from interpersonal conflict and a leader who can balance enhancing positive conflict and manage negative, ineffective discussions [20].
Furthermore, this case situation exemplifies that urgency and pressure can have a positive effect on CC since it forces “the evaluation of key assumptions and the reframing of opportunities” [20:39]. However, such situations require a leader who knows how to balance “debate and discovery”
[20:39] and when a decision must be taken. Moreover, Brandeau paid great attention to remind everyone of the bigger purpose and built bridges between the different organizational roles. Making everyone focus on a collective goal and sharing the same values to enhance and motivate people was a crucial success factor. By this, he managed to avoid frustration to take over. In addition to that, Brandeau stresses the importance of a strong mutual sense of community without which they would not have succeeded in solving this dilemma [20]:
“Our sense of community enabled us to keep going and ultimately find a solution. [...] our deep-rooted sense of responsibility for something bigger than ourselves kept our team from flying apart under this tremendous pressure and allowed us to poke at a seemingly crazy solution that we had already decided would never work and make it work.”
[20:145]
Case Situation Three: Toy Story 2
Another case that describes how Pixar promotes CC to create novel solutions is ToyStory 2. While producing another major CG movie, A Bug’s Life, Pixar started the work on the sequel. Having enough technical leaders to start the production, they did not have enough well experienced creative leaders for the project. However, the
studio decided to take the risk and led the creative lead with directors and producers who have not produced a movie themselves before. Starting with a strong initial idea in the beginning, it soon became clear that the team could not manage developing this idea any further. The story reels they created were not strong enough by the time they started transferring them to animation. In addition to that, the team did not succeed in tackling any of the other challenges they were facing. Finally, the more experienced leaders of A Bug’s Life jumped in once the other production was finished. By that time, ToyStory 2 only had eight months left to deliver the movie which they succeeded in doing with the more experienced leadership [20].
Whilst some might argue that this dilemma could have been foreseen and avoided, Hill’s [20] findings of this case situation emphasize on risk taking as one of Pixar’s key principles for creating innovations. At the studio, failure is seen as part of the process. According to Catmull, it’s the management’s responsibility “not to prevent risk but to build
the capability to recover when failures occur” [11]. Those
capabilities come from talented people, due to the co-founder. He further explains that a “tendency to avoid or
minimize risks” [12] is natural, but is needed to overcome in
order to create novelty and become original.
In addition to that, the case of ToyStory 2 underlines the importance of having a functional, vibrant team that works efficiently together by being aligned by a mutual vision, goals and commitment. The team dynamics have to be healthy and supportive in order for the collective to “solve
the problems that are coming up that are unforeseen” [12]. To
guarantee such healthy, efficient team compositions, Pixar introduced the concept of a new “Development department” based on their experience from the production of Toy Story 2. By supporting directors with incubation teams that are supposed to help them with refining their ideas, the main task of the department is to evaluate whether the social dynamics of those teams are healthy and deliver solutions and progress [11]. In his article about collective creativity in the Harvard Business Review, Catmull even argues that having a functional team is more important than having a great idea:
“If you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they will screw it up; if you give a mediocre idea to a great team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come up with something that works.” [12] Another method of Pixar to foster collectivity is their openly designed work-spaces. The infrastructure of the studio is built in a way that enhances spontaneous interactions and free movement
Conclusion Case Study Pixar Animation Studios
Catmull traces Pixar’s success for constant innovation back to their work philosophy which he describes as following:
“You get great creative people, you bet big on them, you give them enormous leeway and support, and you provide them with an environment in which they can get honest feedback from everyone.” [12]
innovations could have happened without the freedom of experimentation. Neither could their ideas have been developed by just a single mind. Their solutions are the result of every production members creativity and the mutual support of everyone to do their best [20].
With their open and flat communication structure, the studio encourages every employee to share their thoughts, ideas and critics freely, regardless of their role in the company. Equality, honesty, feedback and rewards are therefore crucial elements of their daily business. Iterating ideas belongs just as much to the process as accepting and learning from failures and taking risks. Therefore, constructive discussions and cognitive conflicts are the drivers of their divergent ideation flow [20].
In contrast to that open communication structure, the organizational structure of the studio was managed by directors who were able to balance different paradoxes in order to push their teams to do their very best, like the paradox of minorities and majorities (The Sideward Glance case), the paradox of confronting and supporting (Render Farm case) or the paradox of debate and discovery (Render Farm case). They provided just enough guidance to keep the production team task-orientated, encouraged a healthy creative environment, enhanced rich discourse and transformed the slices of everyone’s creativity into a coherent and single story. In addition to that, knowing that a movie is not finished until it is released, every production’s leader kept an open mind towards changes and let them grow since new ideas are arising throughout the entire process of production. Catmull explains that at Pixar, “we are trying to make a culture where we respond creatively and positively as life changes.” [12]
Volkswagen
Initial Situation and Challenge
Luca De Meo joined Volkswagen as head of marketing communications in 2009 to help the German car manufacturer to achieve their goal of becoming the world’s leading manufacturer within the next ten years. However, the given features and way of working prohibited the innovation that was asked from them to happen [20]. One of the main problems which de Meo identified was the decentralization of Volkswagen’s marketing decisions. As a global operating company, the leading marketing parameters came from VW’s headquarter in Wolfsburg but were developed and implemented into different marketing strategies by each market. Thus, the relationship between the different marketing divisions was rather administrative, only focused on “checking the boxes” [20:76] as described by one VW’s marketers. Moreover, most of the headquartered marketers in Wolfsburg had only little or no working experience or knowledge about VW’s other markets. In addition to that, within the engineering- and product-driven culture of VW, marketing was seen only as a necessity, but not as a strategic function of the company. Hence, the brand identity varied in the different markets and departments significantly. All in all, de Meo identified those points as a lack of strategic, global and innovative thinking within the marketing department [20].
To overcome those problems, the manager had to transform the prior fractured, linear and divided global marketing teams into a non-isolated innovation collective that shares the same brand identity. The teams had to alter from their global and task-driven nature to a purpose-driven
community which shares the same values. Therefore, De Meo introduced the following three key guidelines [20]: The first one was motivating innovative thinking. Within the product-driven culture of VW, innovation has mostly been perceived as something coming from the engineers and product designers only, but not from marketing. Thus, de Meo had to create a will to innovate within the marketing team in order to enable the needed change to happen [20]. Secondly, he aimed to enable exchange and diversity. In order to flourish innovation within marketing, de Meo needed to facilitate enough motivation and opportunities for people to “work together as a team” and “share their know-how and ideas.” [20:80]. Lastly, De Meo had to create a participative work climate, where people share mutual trust and respect for each other, which only arises from “interaction and dialog” [20:80].
Case Situation One: Marketing Worx!
In order to implement those three guidelines, one of de Meo’s first actions was the creation of a two-days design lab called “Marketing Worx!”. Within this workshop, de Meo’s goal was to bring employees from different departments together to elaborate and collaboratively work on important marketing problems VW was tackling at that time. As illustrated by Hill’s [20] research, de Meo needed everyone to break out of their usual work environment and behavior in order to encourage creativity and enable new and more innovative ways of thinking and working. Therefore, he created a work atmosphere which was intentionally informal, free, creative and different from their usual work spaces in order to help people to “reinvent themselves, come
together, and apply their talent and skills to a common end”
[20:81]. It enabled them to discover “new connections, gained
new insights and perspectives on issues critical for the brand”
[20:82].
The results gained from the design-lab unleashed the potential of working as a creative collective and were described by de Meo as “a transformative experience” [20:82], which “showed what people can do [when working]
together collaboratively, without silos and process, and with the ability and mandate to innovate” [20:83].
Case Situation Two: Launch of VW up! Series
Deriving from Hill’s [20] findings, Marketing Worx! did not only change the ongoing work of the participants. Building on the success of the design-lab, de Meo formed a cross-functional team of eleven young professionals to create a 360-launch strategy for the new car of the VW up! series [20]. Having high expectations, he provided the group with full responsibility and autonomy, but without any specific directions or a leader. “I’m not going to tell you how to do it.
You’ll have to do it. See you in a month.” [20:84]. By dropping
in spontaneously, he kept the group task-orientated and forced to use their full potential without interfering their freedom. Furthermore, he encouraged a work climate where trial and failure was nothing to be ashamed of, but a part of the process [20].
the rest of the board were highly impressed with the outcome: “probably one of the most integrated launch strategies done recently” [20:85].
Case Situation Three: Marketing Worx! II
Appointed as Chief Marketing Officer of Volkswagen AG, de Meo held a second design lab, Marketing Worx! II to have both, marketing communications and product marketing, plan the upcoming year. The mindset of this workshop was to collectively work on a unifying brand identity by combining the expertise and creativity of everyone. Learning from the VW up! experience, Hill’s [20] research show that each team had a leader whose responsibility it was to keep everyone updated and push for advice and feedback. In addition to that, de Meo specifically made sure that minorities got heard and unpopular opinions got discussed to challenge people’s usual way of thinking, encourage creativity and risk taking. Furthermore, he pushed people to work faster and more integrated [20]. The result of this second design-lab was the internationally well-known “Think Blue” initiative, which did not only unify VW’s back then scattered and unconnected sustainability actions. It further unified the company's markets around one brand identity and merged two traditionally separated company units together by introducing the Think Blue Factory, which was a cross-departmental initiative for a more efficient use of resources to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution. Another long-time
achievement of the actions de Meo enhanced was a growing sense as a community for the entire marketing division at
VW. As reported by Hill [20], participants of the workshop
reported afterwards that they started reaching out for each other for advice, feedback and ideas more often.
Case Situation Four: Pushing markets together
Although people within marketing developed a stronger community feeling and experienced the benefits of learning, discovering and deciding together, de Meo required all work structures and systems to support collaboration and innovation in order to foster sustainable change [20]. The first step he executed to deliver that change to a higher management level was the transformation of the quarterly European marketing meetings to interactive roundtables. The main problem de Meo identified with those meetings was a great lack of exchange which hindered the development of a community feeling:
“you [the marketers] came here and told me what you were doing and I told you if it was good or not. There was no exchange between one country and another because everyone was doing their own thing.” [20:86]
Instead, the newly introduced roundtables lasted for two days with the goal of discussing priorities and developing “specific plans for key initiatives that would be implemented
by cross-functional cross county teams.” [20:86].
Furthermore, in order to encourage creativity in a more economical manner, de Meo introduced the concept of “Centers of Excellence”. Those markets that demonstrated great performance in a specific area were given financial funds to develop their ideas further and the opportunity to share those ideas with other markets. As described in Hill’s [20] findings, the US marketing team performed excellent in digital business strategy which led to a collaborative project with the headquartered marketing team in Germany to develop a new digital experience for Volkswagen customers worldwide [20].
Moreover, in order to tackle the lack of international experience that de Meo identified within the headquartered marketing team, he started to mix the team by hiring marketers with experience abroad and sending the marketers from Wolfsburg to other marketing departments elsewhere [20].
Conclusion Case Study Volkswagen
One participant of the first Marketing Worx! Lab described de Meo as someone who is “not dictating rules; he’s
gathering and trying to get common commitment” [20:83].
De Meo knew that he could not force people to work collectively together. Instead he motivated them to work in a collective by creating practices, providing structures, forums and room for them to discover the advantages of working together. Furthermore, although he was practicing in a leading position, De Meo knew that he was not the source of innovation, but what Hill described as a “social architect” [20:80]. His task was to create an environment where people are willing to innovate by interacting and exchanging knowledge, ideas and experiences. Therefore, drawing on Hill’s [20] observations, this case study has shown that a creative collective is built on a mutual feeling of community. Being part of something greater than oneself encourages the will to innovate by creating a strong feeling of belonging and identity [20:92]. In order to create such a community, a common purpose has to be established, which has already been considered as important by each team member before in the best case.
Further, it has shown that the transformation to a creative collective has to be adapted to all organizational levels in order to create one brand identity and a sustainable feeling of community. This does also imply mutual trust, acceptance and acknowledgment for others work and departments in the sense of equality. In addition to that, an open-minded and supporting leadership is required since “People are more likely cooperate when management pays
attention not only to KPIs and processes, but also to ideas and beliefs -to the meaning of work.” [20:80].
CONCLUSION: AN INTEGRATIVE, EXPLORATORY FRAMEWORK
This study aimed to answer the research question What are
the factors that contribute to the development of Collective Creativity in an innovation-driven environment? Conducting
an extensive literature analysis and a multiple case study analysis, several factors were identified and summarized in an integrative, exploratory framework (see figure 2). Before evaluating on this framework in more detail, further findings on the phenomena of CC will be explained in the following section.
Moreover, the findings of this research support Woodman et al.’s [43] Interactionist Model of Organizations Creativity. Particularly the multiple case study analysis has shown that functional team compositions, characteristics and processes have a strong impact on the ideation process of developing novel solutions. This further strengthen Bissola’s [7] findings who identified CC as an integral, non-linear process, evolving from individual, organizational and team dynamics.
In addition to that, especially the case study analysis of VW demonstrated that the CC promoting factors have to be established and practiced as a coherent set of principles throughout all organizational levels. In the following sections, those factors will be presented in more detail:
(1) Democratic and co-creational leadership
Based on the results from the literature analysis, a democratic, de-centralized and participatory leadership style was identified as an important factor to foster CC. Analyzing how Pixar and VW practice CC highlighted its essential role in this process. Although the case analyses have shown that leaders are not the source of neither innovation, nor creativity, the results of both methods have proven that it is their responsibility to create and maintain an environment that enables CC to develop since it does not occur automatically. Therefore, the literature analysis pointed out that leaders have to find the right balance between guidance and freedom of action in order to keep their teams task-orientated. In addition to that, analyzing how CC is practiced at Pixar revealed that there are more paradoxes that are needed to be balanced by a leader in order to make a creative collective work efficiently together like debate versus discovery, confronting versus supporting, minorities versus majorities or managing harmony and conflict (see figure 2).
Moreover, the literature analysis identified a high level of emotional intelligence as a CC supporting factor. Analyzing
both cases stressed this finding by showing that a leaders’ role is not to dictate how things need to be done, but to communicate a clear goal as moderating brokers who “set the stage” for people to achieve those goal in their way [20:3]. Supporting the findings of the literature analysis, the
Pixar RenderFarm case situation as well as the VW Marketing Worx! cases have shown that this also requires leaders to carefully challenge their teams to foster high involvement and motivation. In addition to that, the Pixar’s ToyStory2 and VW Up! Launch case situations clarified on the importance of the prior identified factor of risk taking. Both methods emphasized on the necessity of overcoming the natural tendency to prevent risk as a leader, who instead needs to provide enough trust for experimentation as well as the ability and capability to recover in case of failure.
In his interview with Harvard Business Review, Pixar co-found Ed Catmull summarizes a leaders’ position within the CC process as follows:
“What we can do is construct an environment that nurtures trusting and respectful relationships and unleashes everyone’s creativity. If we get that right, the result is a vibrant community where talented people are loyal to one another and their collective work, everyone feels that they are part of something extraordinary, and their passion and accomplishments make the community [...]” [12]
(2) Diverse and dynamic work culture
The literature analysis has stressed the importance of having a diverse, heterogeneous team to enable reflective reframing and creative abrasion as the basis of the CC process. In order for such a divergent group to work efficiently together, analyzing prior conducted studies has shown that a mutual language, trust, openness, participative safety, equality and respect have to be established. In addition to that, the results of the literature analysis pointed out that constructive disagreement, debate
and conflicts are just as much part of the process as feedback and reward.
The results gained from the multiple case study analysis emphasize on those findings and underline the importance of having a functional and vital community of a diverse group of people as a fundamental factor to practice CC. As exemplified by particularly the Pixar case situations, healthy team dynamics and a positive work climate can be more important than an idea itself. In order to create such a community, the VW case has shown that a common brand identity is needed. To enhance this sense of community and keep the group task-orientated, motivated and engaged even in times of high pressure (as seen in the Render Farm case of Pixar), mutual goals, missions, visions, commitments and purposes should be established as identified by both conducted methods. Moreover, in order to facilitate free exchange and interaction of ideas and knowledge without any form of self-censorship, the Sideward Glance case of
Pixar as well as the VW Up! Launch case situation
emphasize on the need to establish equality, mutual support, trust and honesty. All of the identified elements supporting the factor of diverse and dynamic work culture have been summarized in the framework (see figure 2).
(3) Organizational structure
Based on the prior conducted literature analysis, an open and flat organization structure was identified as an important factor for CC to develop since it prevents interaction barriers and facilitates equality. However, the analysis of particularly the VW case points out that a hierarchical order in the sense of decision making, group organization and task-orientation is needed to ensure progress of a creative collective. Hence, structure as a CC promoting factor is used as a means to an end to simplify and focus on effort only “as a tool for facilitating the process of collaboration and discovery-driven learning” [20:37]. Thus, only enough structural metrics should be used to guarantee progress. However, this structure should be separated from the communication structure which should not be limited in any way in order to enable the free exchange of knowledge and ideas as the basis of a CC.
(4) Work environment
As identified within the first conducted methodology, Pixar and VW foster CC by creating collaborative spaces which clearly differ from the usual work environment to flourish creative thinking (as seen in the Marketing Worx! case study situation of VW). They should be arranged and designed in a way that enhances the interactive and spontaneous exchange of ideas between different people and departments. Additionally, creativity enhancing stimuli should be provided to enhance creativity.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study contribute to the growing literature on CC by providing an advanced understanding of the phenomena and how it can be practiced in an innovation-driven manner. Given the fact that today’s challenges became increasingly complex and interdisciplinary, which calls for solutions that are as diverse in their nature, the developed exploratory framework provides valuable implications for management and teamwork. Yet, it needs to be said that CC might not apply as the right solution for every situation. It highly depends on the situational and individual context of a team and its members, which requires the CC promoting factors to be adjusted to the
particular environment in order to be practiced successfully. Thus, CC is rather suitable when developing and solving problems in a sustainable manner.
Moreover, the findings of the presented study can only be assessed in light of this research purpose. With regard to this, the aim of this study was not to assess objectives measures of the effectiveness of the identified factors. For this evaluation, the CC promoting factors needed to be determined first, which has not been done before and which has therefore been the aim his study. However, it would be helpful for practical implementations of this framework to evaluate on each factors’ effectiveness. Therefore, a regression analyses could help assessing not only on the performance strength of those factors. It could further contribute to unravel the relation among the different factors.
Furthermore, it was not the purpose of this research to evaluate whether or in how far individual creativity influences CC. Yet, it would be interesting for future studies to investigate whether such variables could have a moderating or mediating effect on the performance of this phenomenon.
Although a collection of primary data was not possible for this study due to research economical reasons, using multiple methods and case studies strengthen the findings validity [44]. Yet, it would be interesting to test the developed framework on the basis of primary data by conducting expert interviews or observing innovative organizations and their work flows. Analyzing this data with a statistical meta-analysis would not only provide valuable additional insights but would further evaluate on the frameworks’ validity. Moreover, due to increasing the level of multiculturalism in organizations as a result of the growing globalization, and drawing on Puccio et al. [32] and Paulus & Brown [30] findings who claim a positive effect of cultural diversity on CC (see results literature review), investigating whether there are cultural differences in the practicing CC could add significant value.
Another limitation of this study relies in the research methodological barriers of investigating creativity. Measuring creativity or the moment it happens is highly difficult since it occurs naturally [18]. Especially with regard to collectively shared and developed creativity, it is problematic to observe since a person's direct or indirect contribution to the creative process becomes recognizable only afterwards, if at all [18]. Within this context, Sanders & Stappers [33] argue that the growing impact of CC will demand for new research methods and tools which can solve the problem of evaluating creativity [22].
Lastly, the findings of this study indicate a need for paradigm shift for management to focus on the potential of a creative collective as the source of competitive advantage, rather than glorifying solo talents. The results emphasize on the strength of such a collective for innovative problem-solving of today’s multidisciplinary challenges, and which Hill [20] describes as the power of combining everyone’s slice of genius to one “collective genius” [20:4].
REFERENCES
[2] Teresa Amabile. 1998. How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review 76, 5: 76–87.
[3] Teresa Amabile, Constance Noonan Hadley, and Steven J. Kramer. 2002. Creativity Under the Gun. Harvard Business Review 80, 8: 52–61.
[4] Frederick M.C. van Amstel, Guilherme S. Goulart, and Timo Hartmann. 2011. A Problem-Solving Game for Collective Creativity. .
[5] Neil Anderson, Kristina Potočnik, and Jing Zhou. 2014. Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective
Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management 40, 5: 1297–1333.
[6] Constantine Andriopoulos. 2001. Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision 39, 10: 834–841.
[7] Rita Bissola and Barbara Imperatori. 2011. Organizing Individual and Collective Creativity: Flying in the Face of Creativity Clichés: ORGANIZING INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE CREATIVITY. Creativity and Innovation Management 20, 2: 77–89. [8] Shona L. Brown and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1998.
Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. [9] Cristina L. Byrne, Michael D. Mumford, Jamie D.
Barrett, and William B. Vessey. 2009. Examining the Leaders of Creative Efforts: What Do They Do, and What Do They Think About? Creativity and Innovation Management 18, 4: 256–268.
[10] Francisca Castro, Jorge Gomes, and Fernando C. de Sousa. 2012. Do Intelligent Leaders Make a
Difference? The Effect of a Leader’s Emotional Intelligence on Followers’ Creativity: DO INTELLIGENT LEADERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Creativity and Innovation Management 21, 2: 171– 182.
[11] Ed Catmull. 2008. How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard Business Review 9: 1–13.
[12] Ed Catmull. Pixar and Collective Creativity. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/08/harvard-business-ideacast-109.html.
[13] Stefano Cirella, Marco Guerci, and A. B. Shani. 2012. A Process Model of Collaborative Management Research: The Study of Collective Creativity in the Luxury Industry. Systemic Practice and Action Research 25, 3: 281–300.
[14] Raffaele Fabio Ciriello and Alexander Richter. 2015. Idea Hubs as Nexus of Collective Creativity in Digital Innovation. University of Zurich, Department of Informatics, Zurich.
[15] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1996. Creativity: the psychology of discovery and invention.
Harperperennial, New York.
[16] Robert Epstein, Katrina Kaminaka, Victoria Phan, and Rachel Uda. 2013. How is Creativity Best Managed? Some Empirical and Theoretical Guidelines: How is Creativity Best Managed? Creativity and Innovation Management 22, 4: 359–374.
[17] Gilla Family. 2003. Collective Creativity: A Complex Solution for the Complex Problem of the State of Our Planet. Creativity Research Journal 15, 1: 83–90. [18] Andrew B. Hargadon and Beth A. Bechky. 2006. When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work. Organization Science 17, 4: 484–500. [19] Sven Hemlin and Lisa Olsson. 2011.
Creativity-Stimulating Leadership: A Critical Incident Study of Leaders’ Influence on Creativity in Research Groups: CREATIVITY-STIMULATING LEADERSHIP.
Creativity and Innovation Management 20, 1: 49–58. [20] Linda A. Hill, Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, and
Kent Lineback, eds. 2014. Collective genius: the art and practice of leading innovation. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Mass.
[21] Scott G. Isaksen and Göran Ekvall. 2010. Managing for Innovation: The Two Faces of Tension in Creative Climates: TWO FACES OF TENSION IN CREATIVE CLIMATES. Creativity and Innovation Management 19, 2: 73–88.
[22] Kleidson Daniel Leopoldino, Mario González, and José Júnior3. 2016. Factors that Contribute to
Collective Creativity Development in Organizations. . [23] Rama Chandra Nayak and Ramesh Agarwal. 2011. A
Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. International Journal of Transformations in Business Management 1, 1: 1–8.
[24] G. R. Oldham and A. Cummings. 1996. EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: PERSONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AT WORK. Academy of Management Journal 39, 3: 607–634.
[25] Lise A. van Oortmerssen, Cees M. J. van Woerkum, and Noelle Aarts. 2015. When Interaction Flows: An Exploration of Collective Creative Processes on a Collaborative Governance Board. Group & Organization Management 40, 4: 500–528.
[26] Susanna Paloniemi and Kaija Collin. 2012. Discursive Power and Creativity in Inter-Professional Work. Vocations and Learning 5, 1: 23–40.
[27] Satu Parjanen. 2012. Experiencing Creativity in the Organization: From Individual Creativity to Collective Creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 7: 109– 128.
2012. Brokerage functions in a virtual idea generation platform: Possibilities for collective creativity? Innovation 14, 3: 363–374.
[29] Paul Paulus. 2000. Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea‐generating Groups. Applied Psychology 49, 2: 237–262.
[30] Paul B. Paulus and Vincent R. Brown. 2007. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea
Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1, 1: 248–265.
[31] Paul B Paulus and Bernard Arjan Nijstad. 2003. Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York.
[32] Gerard J. Puccio, Mary Murdock, and Marie Mance. 2007. Creative leadership: skills that drive change. SAGE Publ, Thousand Oaks.
[33] Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 1: 5–18.
[34] Christina E. Shalley, Jing Zhou, and Greg R. Oldham. 2004. The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management 30, 6: 933–958. [35] Anit Somech and Anat Drach-Zahavy. 2013.
Translating Team Creativity to Innovation
Implementation: The Role of Team Composition and Climate for Innovation. Journal of Management 39, 3: 684–708.
[36] Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Jerome L. Singer, eds. 2004. Creativity: From potential to realization. American Psychological Association, Washington.
[37] R. Strazdas, J. Cerneviciute, Vaidas Morkevicius, Zilvinas Jancoras, Kregzdaite, and Rusne Kregzdaite. 2013. Collective Creativity Skills Development in Study Process: Insight About Students Teamwork. 6391–6399.
[38] Carmit T. Tadmor, Patricia Satterstrom, Sujin Jang, and Jeffrey T. Polzer. 2012. Beyond Individual Creativity: The Superadditive Benefits of
Multicultural Experience for Collective Creativity in Culturally Diverse Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43, 3: 384–392.
[39] Joseph Tidd and J. R. Bessant. 2013. Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom. [40] Bettina Von Stamm. 2003. Managing innovation,
design and creativity. J. Wiley, Chichester ; New York. [41] Michael A. West. 1997. Developing creativity in
organizations. BPS Books, Leicester.
[42] Scott Williams. 2001. Increasing employees’ creativity by training their managers. Industrial and
Commercial Training 33, 2: 63–68.
[43] Richard W. Woodman, John E. Sawyer, and Ricky W. Griffin. 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review 18, 2: 293–321.
TRITA-EECS-EX-2019:567
