Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2009

Creativity in research and development environments:

A practical review

Joachim Burbiel

Fraunhofer-Institute for Technological Trend Analysis

Appelsgarten 2, 53879 Euskirchen, Germany

Tel: +49 (0) 22 51 / 18-2 13

Email: joachim.burbiel@int.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

Creativity is of paramount importance to the innovation process. Therefore the findings of creativity

research should be thoroughly considered in organisations where innovation processes are required.

This review summarises the literature in the field of work place creativity, with special attention given

to R&D environments. Current theoretical models of creativity are discussed and a literature review of

the influence of (i) motivation, (ii) interaction within work groups and between group leaders and

members, and (iii) organisational culture and environment on creativity is undertaken. Practical advice

is derived from literature findings wherever possible.

Keywords: creativity, innovation, research, development, motivation, organisational culture,

brainstorming

Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Mr. Manfred Burbiel for valuable support regarding

language issues.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

There is general consensus that high profit companies of our times rely heavily on innovation to

maintain their efficiency and survivability, with innovation being defined as the process from an idea to

the introduction of a novelty into the market (Mumford 2000, Basadur 2004). Novelty and usefulness

are in fact the two characteristic parameters to differentiate true innovations from me-too products and

purely artistic achievements (Ford 1992, as cited in Scott 1995). Although an innovation is often a

technologically different (and, in the best case, superior) product, it may also take the form of a new

design, service or business process (Mumford 2000).

Creativity, which we define as the combination of idea generation and idea validation (see section

2.2), is essential to the innovation process. Again and again, novel ideas need to be incorporated into

the innovation process (figure 1). Creativity is even necessary before the actual innovation process can

begin, and can thus be considered as “pre-innovation”: Although the first idea itself might be elusive, it

is prerequisite for scientific, technological or procedural innovation.

Figure 1: The relationship of innovation and creativity

Shalley & Gilson (2004) state that “most managers would agree that there is room, in almost every

job, for employees to be more creative.” Although we generally agree with this view, creativity seems

to be more important in some work domains than in others. While creativity is a sine qua non in

advertising and marketing, it might be less desirable in accounting, although a novel accounting

process can well be a valuable innovation. Most scientific and technological innovation is expected to

originate from research and development (R&D) organisations or departments. As creativity is the

source of innovation, it can well be claimed that creativity is essential for successful R&D and that

creativity in R&D thus deserves special attention.

According to Heinze (2007) there are five types of scientific creativity:

1. Formulation of a new idea (or of a set of new ideas) that opens up a new cognitive frame

or brings theoretical claims to a new level of sophistication (basic assumptions → theory,

e.g. Einstein’s theory of specific relativity)

2. Discovery of a new empirical phenomenon that stimulates new theorizing (observation

→ theory, e.g. Darwin’s theory of evolution)

3. Development of a new methodology, by means of which theoretical problems can be

empirically tested (theory → method, e.g. Spearman’s development of factor analysis to

test his theory on mental abilities)

4. Invention of a novel instrument that opens up new search perspectives and research

domains (technique → new possibilities, e.g. scanning tunnelling microscopy which

made nanotechnology possible)

5. New synthesis of formerly dispersed ideas into general theoretical laws enabling analyses

of diverse phenomena within a common cognitive frame (single ideas → general theory,

e.g. general systems theory)

All of these types of creative acts are achievements in their own right. Their diversity cautions

against a definition of scientific creativity that is too narrow to reflect this range. Another danger in the

study of creativity is to focus only on exceptional persons and events (like the examples in the above

list). Although the study of exceptional persons or events might cast an interesting light on creativity in

general (Holm-Hadulla 2007), it appears to be more useful to concentrate on average people. We

propose that in normal circumstances the development of creativity in ordinary employees is a more

Joachim Burbiel

feasible way of inducing idea generation and validation than hiring or nurturing a genius, as by

definition a genius is the great exception.

Moreover, there is another problem in the study of singular “geniuses”, especially in the field of

basic sciences. There is little doubt that chance has played a major role in many breakthrough

discoveries. Historic examples are the discovery of the vulcanization of rubber by Charles Goodyear

(which is reported to have happened the first time on a dirty lab floor in 1839), radioactive radiation by

Henri Becquerel (while studying a faulty theory of phosphorescence in 1896), and Penicillin by

Alexander Fleming (working with fungus-contaminated Petri dishes in 1928). The creative act of these

researchers was to recognise the importance of unexpected findings, and what made them succeed was

their determination to find the reason why something had gone wrong. On the other hand, if these

“accidents” had happened in other laboratories, we would probably study other “scientific geniuses”

nowadays (although Simonton (2004) remarks that some scientists “appear to be consistently more

lucky than others”, implying a special ability to exploit chance). The risk of studying champions that

were “just lucky”, and ignoring brilliant, but less fortunate scientists is reduced when looking at larger

groups of more average people.

This paper summarises the literature in the field of work place creativity, with special attention

given to the R&D environment. Though our aim was to focus on recent research, some older papers

have been considered if they have proven to be the foundation of further fruitful work. As for structure,

we will first outline some theoretical concepts of creativity, then analyse motivation - maybe the most

important factor for individual creativity- , move on to creativity on team or work group level, and

finally point out measures to be taken on institutional level to create an environment favourable to the

generation and validation of new ideas.

2 MODELS OF CREATIVITY

The theoretical models of creativity currently discussed in literature can be divided into two

groups: componential theories that examine which human characteristics and abilities are necessary to

perform creative acts, and sequential theories that concentrate on the creative process. As both kinds of

reasoning lead to interesting insights, examples of both are discussed below and referred to throughout

this paper. Generally speaking, componential theories give advice on how to design long-term

processes conducive to creativity, while sequential theories are more useful when considering short-

term action or interaction.

2.1 The “Componential Theory of Individual Creativity”

According to the Componential Theory of Individual Creativity (Amabile 1997), the three

essential components of individual creativity are expertise, creative-thinking skill and intrinsic task

motivation.

Expertise comprises factual knowledge, technical proficiency and a special talent in the target

work domain. While knowledge and proficiency can be improved over time, talent is more or less a

given thing rooted in individual personality.

Creative-thinking skill is that “something extra” found in creative people. There is a consensus

that creative thinking can be learned, at least to some degree. Basadur (2004) emphasises that idea

generation should be separated from idea validation, and claims that this deferral of judgment can be

trained. A “master-apprentice relationship” is generally considered to be most effective for the teaching

of creative-thinking skills (e.g. Weilerstein 2003).

Motivation determines what a person actually will do. As motivation is the component that can be

influenced most directly by environmental factors, it will receive special consideration in section 3.

2.2 Sequential models

There are several models that describe the creative process in a sequential way. According to

Wallas (1926) the four stages in the development of an idea are: preparation, incubation, illumination,

and verification. Preparation comprises both personal preparation (knowledge and proficiency) and the

investigation of the problem in all directions. Incubation is a period in which the problem is banned

from conscious thought, and dealt with in an unconscious way. Illumination is the appearance of the

“happy idea”. This can be either instantaneous or a slower process. These two, somewhat mystic,

stages mentioned last can hardly be influenced from the outside. Verification, finally, is the testing of

the validity (novelty and usefulness) of the idea, either by the creator or different persons (cited from

Scott 1995 and Holm-Hadulla 2007).

In contrast to this rather abstract four-stage model, we describe the creative act as being composed

of only two stages, both of which can be influenced on individual and institutional level. The two

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

stages are idea generation and idea validation. While idea generation requires divergent thinking skills

to produce as many and as diverse ideas as possible, in idea validation convergent thinking skills are

necessary to decide which are the most promising ideas. A similar process, “ideation-evaluation”, has

been described to be essential to the three stages of the problem solving process (problem finding,

problem solving, solution implementation) by Basadur, Graen & Green (1982). In artistic settings, the

first step is a value in itself and validation is not that essential, as loose ends might even be desirable in

a work of art. In commercial or scientific settings, validation is absolutely necessary as only very few

ideas can be taken to realisation. Both stages can either be performed by one individual or as a group

process.

2.3 The “Search for Ideas in Associative Memory” (SIAM) model

In the theoretical section of their paper, Nijstad & Stroebe (2006) describe a creativity model

called Search for Ideas in Associative Memory (SIAM). They claim that two distinct types of memory

are active in the creative process, i.e. a large, static network of associative images (Long-term Memory

(LTM), Note: In this context, “images” are general intellectual objects with no necessity of visual or

spatial components) and a small, dynamic Working Memory (WM) (closely associated with

consciousness). Based on this assumption the generation of an idea is described as to proceed in several

steps (figure 2):

1. Based on the given task, a search cue is generated in the WM. This takes some conscious

effort.

2. The search cue activates an image in the LTM. The choice of which image is activated is

not deterministic.

3. If no image can be activated or if the activated image has already been activated

previously in the process, this is considered a “failure”, and a new image has to be

activated. If the number of failures exceeds a certain limit, the whole process is

terminated. (negative feedback loop 1 → “running out of ideas”)

4. If the image activated in step 2 is “new”, the association between this image and the

original problem is strengthened.

5. Next, an idea is created from the image, either by combination of different parts of the

image, or the image and the cue, or the image and previously generated ideas. This is,

again, a probabilistic process.

6. If no idea can be generated or if the generated idea has already been generated previously

in the process, this is considered a “failure”, and a new idea has to be generated. If the

number of failures exceeds a certain limit, a new image has to be activated. (negative

feedback loop 2 → “image depleted”, search cue may be modified by considering new

ideas)

7. If the idea generated in step 5 is “new”, the associations between this idea and the image

and between the idea and the original problem are strengthened.

8. Next, the idea is stored in the WM, and, if no disturbance arises, expressed.

9. A new idea is generated → step 5

Joachim Burbiel

Figure 2: The “Search for Ideas in Associative Memory” (SIAM) model (adapted from Nijstad &

Stroebe (2006))

The Search for Ideas in Associative Memory (Nijstad 2006) matches well with the Componential

Theory of Individual Creativity (Amabile 1997): Expertise can be considered a measure of how well

developed (density and ontological interconnectedness) the LTM is, creative-thinking skill can be seen

as proficiency in cue generation and activation of images, and motivation as tolerance to failures and

thus a measure on how long the ideation process is kept active.

2.4 SIAM and production blocking

According to Nijstad & Stroebe (2006), production blocking, a concept important in the

explanation of effects observed in brainstorming (see section 4.3), may occur at two stages of the

process. In both cases it is caused by the limited resources of the WM. There is a high chance of a

validated idea being simply forgotten if mental work has to be performed between storing the idea in

the WM (step 8a) and expressing the idea (step 8b). In a group brainstorming setting, this mental work

consists of monitoring the group proceedings for a possibility to express one’s idea. The chance of

forgetting an idea rises with waiting time, and thus with group size, making large brainstorming groups

less effective. Apart from that, this mental work might also interfere with the demanding process of

activating a new image in the LTM (step 2). The false impression that group brainstorming is more

effective than individual brainstorming might be caused by these interruptions (at least in part, as other

processes like social comparison play a part, too): In individual brainstorming, both more images are

activated, and activated images are used more thoroughly, as fewer interruptions occur. That leads to a

higher number of “failures”, which again are experienced as negative, and lead to the (erroneous)

feeling of low efficiency.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3 MOTIVATION

Although most of the relevant publications emphasise that innovation is a group process,

Redmond (1993) underlines the fact that “it should, however, be recognised that the individual is the

ultimate source of any idea or novel problem solution”. Although this original idea will be modified,

supplemented or excluded by a team, idea generation happens inside the individual. On the other hand,

idea processing can only happen once the idea is expressed and communicated to the outside

environment.

As pointed out above, the Componential Theory of Individual Creativity (Amabile 1997) insists

on (intrinsic) motivation as a key component of individual creativity. The link between motivation and

creativity is well established and generally accepted. Yet, there are two questions related to it that have

not been answered exhaustively. The first one has received some attention, and results from research on

it will be discussed further on: Does it make a difference if individuals are motivated by themselves

(intrinsic motivation), in contrast to being motivated by prospects of receiving rewards for being

creative from outside (extrinsic motivation)? The second question has not been raised in a scientific

context, to the best of our knowledge: Does motivation really influence the production or just the

expression of new ideas? In other words, do poorly motivated individuals have new ideas at the same

rate as highly motivated ones, and do they just not tell anybody?

3.1 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

Arthur Schawlow, winner of the noble prize in physics 1981, was once asked what, in his opinion,

made the difference between highly creative and less creative scientists. He replied: “The labor of love

aspect is important. The most successful scientists often are not the most talented. But they are the ones

who are impelled by curiosity. They’ve got to know what the answer is” (cited by Amabile 1997). This

is a fair description of intrinsic motivation. Another example is given by Akio Morita (1986), the

founder of Sony: “I believe people work for satisfaction. I believe it is a big mistake to think that

money is the only way to compensate a person for his work. People need money, but they also want to

be happy in their work and proud of it.” This sense of pride (which seems to be closely associated with

the sense of ownership mentioned in other studies) is another component of intrinsic motivation. It

seems to reflect a genuine human longing to be creative and to be identified with the creative act or

outcome.

While there is little doubt that intrinsic motivation is typical of highly creative individuals, the

question if and why this type of motivation could be more conducive to creativity than motivation

induced by the prospect of some kind of reward is still discussed vividly: Several authors claim that

incentives and other measures that let employees participate in commercial success, will motivate

creativity (e.g. Springer 1992), while others observe that creativity is dwarfed if rewards are promised

(e.g. Amabile 1996). To make things even more complicated, a third kind of motivation, by feelings of

obligation, has been proposed (Cooper 2006).

Baer et al. (2003) aimed at resolving the confusion caused by these inconsistent findings on the

effects of rewards on creativity. They put forward the idea that the effect of rewards on creativity is

influenced both by cognitive style and work complexity. Cognitive style is defined by the Adaption-

Innovation Theory (Kirton 1994), in which “adaptors” tend to operate within given paradigms and

procedures, while “innovators” tend to develop problem solutions that are qualitatively different from

previous ones. After evaluating interviews with 117 employees of two manufacturing companies and

correlating the results with creativity as perceived by immediate superiors, Baer et al. (2003) were able

to show a complex pattern between cognitive style, job complexity, and the effect of rewards on

creativity (figure 3). They found that employees with simple jobs showed a strong response to extrinsic

rewards: While the creativity of innovators was lowered, adaptors showed a steep rise in creativity,

reversing the original order of innovators being more creative than adaptors. Their main finding in

respect to complex jobs, which are predominant in R&D environments, was that while innovators are

hardly affected by the prospect of rewards, the creativity of adaptors is considerably lowered. This was

explained by pointing out that adaptors in complex jobs have weaker intrinsic motivation, which is

further shaken if extrinsic reward is offered, as this makes them feel even more instrumental for

making profit and less valued as individuals. We are not totally convinced that this is the only possible

explanation of these interesting findings.

Joachim Burbiel

Figure 3: The relationship between creativity and rewards (adapted from Baer et al. (2003))

According to Mumford (2000) a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards might be the most

effective way of boosting creativity: “Because creative work is linked to curiosity and independence,

providing time to pursue topics of personal professional interest, or reducing administrative burdens,

may prove useful reward strategies particularly when accompanied by pay incentives, bonuses, and

patent rights.” Rewards and incentives have an additional benefit: They indicate to employees what

kind of performance is desired by the management and are thus valuable means of communicating

corporate values and goals to individual employees (Wong 2003). As such, they support the immediate

superior’s function of conveying these values and goals (see section 4.2).

In contrast to this, Heinze (2007) observed that many research institutions run reward schemes that

work in a detrimental way: “Institutional arrangements for rewarding outstanding scientists include

increasing the size of their research group, putting them in charge of a research institute, or expecting

them to act as a national expert on various committees. These rewards have the perverse effect of

preventing these scientists from doing what they are best at: research and inspiring colleagues.” These

observations urgently call for a critical evaluation of incentive systems especially in highly innovative

areas like R&D where the reward schemes described by Heinze are common and unquestioned

practise.

3.2 Mission

A less individualistic approach towards improving motivation is the provision of a “mission”. The

perception of contributing a unique part to the achievement of a worthy goal (like “curing cancer” or

“flying to the moon”) has been identified as a major element in most of the creative events examined

by Heinze (2007). According to Akio Morita (1986), it is one of the prime tasks of management to find

and communicate these overall targets: “Management of an industrial company must be giving targets

to the engineers constantly; that may be the most important job management has in dealing with its

engineers.” The same is surely true for scientists.

Some research has been conducted on how such overall goals or missions can be generated. In a

model suggested by Strange & Mumford (2005), the analysis of idealized goals and their causes is

prerequisite for the formation of a so-called prescriptive mental model (PMM), which is a set of ideas

on how things should be. This PMM is then refined to a “vision” that can be communicated, and may

thus inspire others to act in a way favourable to reaching the state imagined in the PMM. A vision in

this sense can be distinguished from a plan, as it tells people where to go but does not necessarily tell

them how to get there. Interestingly, Strange & Mumford (2005) have found that experience plays a

major role in creating such mental models. They claim that having people with a wide range of

experience and a “colourful” background in the team will benefit the creation of “vision” and thus

contribute indirectly, but very effectively to enhancing creativity.

3.3 Contest

Several highly creative scientists interviewed by Heinze (2007) claimed that friendly competition

between different groups of the same organisation had been important as a driving factor towards

creative achievements. Priority races between groups of different organisations might also be strong

motivators. These priority races can take the form of friendly competition with a high level of

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

communication or of fierce rivalry with no mutual communication at all, while anything in between is

also possible.

Motivation can also be improved on inter-company or even international level: A study conducted

under the auspices of the US National Academy of Engineering (1999) concluded that inducement

prize contests have led to innovations in engineering (especially aeronautic engineering) in a highly

effective way. This positive outcome is attributed to three effects: (i) the ability to attract a broad

spectrum of ideas and participants, (ii) the potential to leverage financial resources from sponsors, and

(iii) the capacity to educate, inspire and mobilise the public (as cited in Young 2007). Recent examples

of this kind of contests are the Ansari X-Prize for the first non-government organisation to launch a

reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks (won on October 4, 2004 by Scaled

Composites and their “SpaceShipOne”) and the DARPA Urban Challenge 2007 for an autonomous

vehicle crossing an urban environment (won on November 3, 2007 by Tartan Racing’s vehicle “Boss”).

4 WORK GROUP CREATIVITY

In remarkable contrast to the rapid technological progress in the last decades, the process by which

technological innovation is performed has remained fairly un-changed over the years: R&D is mainly

carried out by project groups that generate or import scientific and technological information, transform

it into novel ideas, products, or processes, and then export these innovations to other units of the

organisation (Elkins & Keller 2003). So, while creativity is sometimes still associated with the “lone

genius” working in a secluded laboratory, most creative work takes place in organisational settings and

is usually conducted in teams nowadays (Redmond 1993). Going one step beyond, Fischer et al. (2005)

claim that most intellectual processes, including creativity, are in fact social processes. According to

them, “the power of the unaided individual mind is highly overrated” and “most scientific and artistic

innovations emerge from joint thinking, passionate conversations and shared struggles among different

people, emphasizing the importance of the social dimension of creativity.”

This emphasis on group work is based on the assumption that idea generation is best performed in

groups and that interaction with others fosters creativity (Vester 1978). Yet, some researchers challenge

this view and assert that contrary to popular belief, group interaction inhibits the ideation process (e.g.

Nijstad 2006). In the light of controversies like this, it seems to be prudent to examine group interaction

processes, both inside the group (including interaction with group leaders), and between groups and

their surroundings, in order to gain insight into creative processes in working environments.

We will examine processes of work group creativity under various aspects: (i) size and

constitution of the group, (ii) impact of the group leader, and (iii) creativity techniques.

4.1 Size and constitution of the work group

While large groups offer the advantage of providing a large knowledge base, especially if group

members come from different professions, there is a consensus among researchers that small groups are

more apt to perform creative tasks. The mechanism behind the effects blocking creativity in large

groups is quite complex. One aspect is losing track of “who is doing what”, which in turn will lead to a

reduced spread of novel ideas. Large groups are also less conducive to “master-apprentice

relationships”, which are considered exceptionally well suited for passing on creative abilities from

senior to junior members of staff (Weilerstein, Ruiz, Gorman 2003). This kind of relationship is

mutually beneficial, as senior staff is likely to get fresh ideas from newer members of the team: “The

wellsprings of research creativity reside in junior scientists and are waiting to be unleashed” (Heinze

2007). Furthermore, collaborative peer review, most often by a more senior scientist, is considered the

best method to direct creative work, when requisite expertise and motivation are present (Mumford

2000).

In larger groups, communication needs to be formalised and thus requires complex and time-

consuming meeting procedures in contrast to low-level chats typical of smaller teams. In these less

formal chats new ideas arise at a considerably higher rate. Regular, large meetings with a strict

hierarchical order can even be considered as a means of suppressing creativity since they have the well-

documented effect of weakening innovative ideas by voicing all kinds of concerns and limitations.

They will thus level down novel ideas to a streamlined generally accepted consensus. Additional

scarceness of administrative staff will add to the low effectiveness of these meetings, as preparation

will be poor which makes the outcome even more erratic.

As a practical solution to the dilemma that small groups are more conducive to creativity, but lack

the knowledge and ability base of larger groups, Heinze (2007) suggests to organize research in small

teams, but to create an organisational environment that facilitates informal interaction of these small

teams (see section 5.3). These interactions are considered to be especially fruitful if groups have highly

Joachim Burbiel

complementary knowledge and expertise, e.g. if theoretically focused groups interact with more

experimentally oriented ones. In such a context, the small “core teams” can be considered as

Communities of Practice (CoP), held together by a shared knowledge base and a homogeneous modus

operandi (set of methods and techniques), while the whole organisation can be considered a

Community of Interest (CoI), held together by a common goal. Smaller CoIs, made up of members of

different CoPs, can be formed as the necessity arises. They are less stable than the core teams and

might disband after a particular problem has been solved, be it after five minutes or several years.

The question whether constant or changing teams are more conducive to creativity has caused

some debate among scientists. Nemeth & Ormiston (2007) claim that stable group membership might

well increase morale, performance and felt creativity, while measurable creativity flourishes in a less

comfortable environment with changing group members. People exposed to dissent, which stable

groups appear to actively discourage, take account of more information on all sides of the issue, utilise

multiple strategies, have improved performance and make better decisions (Gruenfeld, 1995; Van Dyne

& Saavedra, 1996, both as cited in Nemeth 2007). As one conclusion Nemeth & Ormiston (2007) state

that perceived creativity may have little to do with actual creativity. They suspect that people often

confuse friendliness and comfort with creativity. The discrepancy between felt and measurable

creativity shows parallels to the effects of group brainstorming (as described in section 4.3), and

indicates that self-assessment of creativity is always precarious. This is supported by Scott (1995) who

advises to set generous but strict deadlines to creative projects, as highly creative people are rarely

satisfied with the outcome of their efforts. Nemeth & Ormiston (2007) conclude: “Managers should be

cautioned against the ‘paradox of success’ wherein they place individuals in groups on a new task

based on who previously worked well together. Rather, teaming individuals who have not previously

worked together may better benefit the creative process.”

There is considerable evidence that introducing new members with a background different from

the one already existent in a team will lead to higher creativity. Leaders with the ability to select new

group members with skills complementing the ones already present are considered to obtain the most

creative groups in a scientific environment (Heinze 2007). These new members should share some

domain knowledge with present members to make effective communication possible, but they should

also bring new abilities to the group to broaden the team’s domain coverage. These features can be

depicted both as a fish-scale model (Fisher 2005) and as a Venn diagram (Simonton 2004) (figure 4).

Both diagrams show that new members should broaden the horizon of the existing group, while still

covering enough common ground to be able to communicate with other team members. Springer

(1992) recommends considering individuals with a less-than-streamlined CV when hiring for creativity,

as experience in diverse fields is a productive source of creative thought.

Figure 4: Different graphical representations of suitable knowledge within work groups (circles:

knowledge domains of individuals; dashed circles: well suited domains of new group members)

4.2 Influence of leader behaviour

The influence of leader behaviour on creativity in subordinates is well documented in literature

(e.g. Redmond 1993, Wong 2003, Amabile 2004).

A principal function of leaders is to set goals and assign tasks. In the case of highly skilled

workers, like scientists or engineers, a special sensitivity is necessary, as both too much and too little

guidance will impair creativity and productivity. Personal freedom, both in choosing which particular

task to do next and how to tackle it, has been identified as a major source of creativity by various

authors (e.g. Schepers & van den Berg 2007). Freedom of choice in how to conduct their research was

one of the points stressed most when creative scientists were asked about the source of their creativity

(Heinze 2007). This freedom also makes employees feel that they are indeed valued as persons, a factor

that - according to Springer (1992) - leads to well-being and thus stimulates creativity. Goals and

objectives should be defined in broad terms to guarantee the necessary procedural freedom. Goal

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

definition should focus on creativity rather than on production, as highly creative work is often less

productive in terms of measurable output than more conventional one (Mumford 2000).

Shalley & Gilson (2004) underscore this view by stressing that time is a critical resource when

managing for creativity. They point out that it is far easier and less time consuming for most employees

to stick to routine methods that have proved to be efficient than to spend considerable time and energy

on new, creative approaches whose final outcome is rather unpredictable. After studying the influence

of leader behaviour on the quality of the solution of a marketing task, Redmond, Mumford & Teach

(1993) suggest that although “the pressures of organisational life may cause leaders to seek and

demand immediate problem solutions, […] leaders would be well-advised to give subordinates time to

think about the problem.” Leaders should “actively take steps to encourage subordinate problem

construction”, e.g. by having them list multiple issues or restate the problem. Basadur & Gelade (2006)

give several examples where insufficient time spent on problem generation caused substantial delay in

finding viable solutions.

Immediate superiors are thought to have the strongest impact on employee motivation. They have

a central mediating role between the organisation and the individual employee. It is their task to

communicate the values of the organisation and to serve as visible role models on how employees are

supposed to act. In doing so, they reconcile the dichotomy between what employees would like to do

and the actual work that the organisation expects them to do, without over-controlling highly skilled

subordinates.

Another important function of group leaders is to connect the work group to the outside world.

This means communicating the group’s needs, aims, and results to higher-level management and,

especially in the case of academic research, to a broader scientific community. On the other hand, it is

the group leader’s function to act as an information broker to connect the group to other interested

parties that might provide physical or intellectual means not available to the group otherwise (Heinze

2007).

The perception of a leader that supports the team in these ways, combined with respect and

(public) recognition for individual group members, have been shown to be among the strongest

motivators for high ability subjects who found their task involving and meaningful (Amabile 2004).

The inducement of self-efficacy (e.g. by appreciating individual potential or achievement) and the

motivation of subordinates to apply time to problem identification and goal definition should also be

mentioned. These factors have been identified as having positive effects both on the quality of work

output and on the willingness to take creative risks (Redmond 1993).

Finally, examples of both positive and negative behaviour reveal that the positivity or negativity

was often conveyed more by how something was done than by what was done. This means that leader

actions that are conducive to creativity, like serving as a good work model, planning and setting goals

appropriately, supporting the work group within the organisation, communicating and interacting well

with the work group, valuing individual contributions, providing constructive feedback, showing

confidence in the work group, and being open to new ideas, might not be enough if they are perceived

as mere management tactics by employees. In the same way that interest in one’s work is highly

motivating (see section 3.1), the perception of genuine interest of the leader in the team and its

individual members is a strong creativity enhancer that cannot be substituted by the mechanical

application of simple motivation techniques. The study of this effect is complicated by the fact that

leaders’ behaviour patterns can lead to positive or negative spirals in team dynamics and performance,

whereby the effects of leader behaviour become amplified over time. This suggests that the effects of

leader behaviour on subordinate perception, emotion, and creativity are neither static nor

unidirectional, but part of a dynamic relationship (Amabile 2004).

In the end, “what seems to be called for is an open, intellectually challenging environment where

entrepreneurial behaviour on the part of collaborating teams is actively encouraged” (Mumford 2000).

4.3 Creativity techniques

Creativity techniques like brainstorming are generally considered useful tools for idea generation.

Yet, Nijstad & Stroebe (2006) caution against their undiscriminating use in groups. They cite

considerable evidence that while the general rules of brainstorming (emphasis on quantity,

encouragement of unusual ideas, and discouragement of criticism) are well suited for producing high

quality ideas, “the prediction that brainstorming is best performed in groups has not received support.”

While felt creativity is higher if brainstorming is performed in a group with n members, the measurable

outcome is higher if creative tasks are performed by n individuals and ideas are then pooled (“nominal

group”). By reviewing the literature (e.g. Mullen 1991), Nijstad & Stroebe (2006) were able to show

that indeed “productivity loss in brainstorming groups is highly significant, and of strong magnitude.”

As a consequence, they recommend the use of this technique either for individual idea generation or in

Joachim Burbiel

two-person groups, as the loss of productivity increases rapidly with group size. Production blocking,

that is stopping the transition from having an idea to expressing the idea, seems to be the main

mechanism behind this negative effect. It correlates with group size, as the individuals have to wait for

their turn to express an idea until other group members have expressed their thoughts (Nijstad 2006).

“Electronic brainstorming” (EBS) has been proposed as a creativity techniques that avoids this

kind of forced break and can lead to improved idea output, especially in large groups. Although several

different methods of EBS exist, most share a user interface consisting of two windows, one to type in

ideas, and another to display all ideas generated in the particular session. DeRosa, Smith & Hantula

(2007) have conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the possible benefits of EBS. According to them,

EBS could have several positive effects, as compared to traditional face-to-face (FTF) brainstorming:

(i) production blocking should be less pronounced, as the individual group members can type in a new

idea at any time, without having to wait for their turn, (ii) EBS has an inherent memory advantage, as

ideas are conserved and remain visible on the computer screen, (iii) the anonymity possible in EBS

might facilitate the expression of dissenting and minority opinions, which again stimulates thinking in

divergent ways and finding creative solutions (Nemeth 2007). As to the quantity and quality of ideas,

DeRosa, Smith & Hantula (2007) were able to place EBS between FTF brainstorming and nominal

control groups: While outperforming traditional brainstorming groups by far, EBS groups were slightly

less productive than the nominal controls, where the individual ideas were pooled without interaction.

As to member satisfaction, EBS outperformed both other kinds of brainstorming, possibly because the

results were so clearly visible on-screen. Taking the meta-analysis one step further, the influence of

group size was analysed separately, with surprising results: While small nominal (non-interacting)

groups outperformed EBS groups with eight members or less, larger EBS groups showed considerably

better performance than their nominal controls. As for practical considerations, DeRosa, Smith &

Hantula (2007) advise to use EBS instead of FTF if group brainstorming is desired. They believe that

the size effect is only of practical importance if it is relatively easy and inexpensive to form large

groups or teams. In any other setting, individual brainstorming and pooling of ideas might well be more

efficient.

While brainstorming, as the classical creativity technique, still receives considerable research

interest, other group techniques have evolved. Many of those applicable to small groups (in contrast to

large group distributed design tools) deal with the externalization of knowledge. According to Fischer

et al. (2005) externalization, that is the expression of otherwise tacit knowledge, supports group

creativity in several ways: (i) to express a vague mental concept it has to be made more concrete,

making thoughts and intentions more accessible for reflection, (ii) a physical record of mental efforts is

produced, inhibiting the forgetting of ideas and conveying a higher feeling of productivity, (iii) it

relieves from the difficult task of thinking about ones own thoughts, (iv) others can act on and react to

externalized ideas, and (v) it contributes to a common language of understanding, a way to speak about

things. The use of computers to support externalization of knowledge is becoming increasingly

common. Interestingly, many of the supporting methods involve moving physical objects like Lego

bricks. This seems to be a very “natural” way to discuss problems in groups that helps experts from

different domains to interact in a meaningful way (Fischer 2005).

5 THE CREATIVE INSTITUTION

Most group creativity takes place in the context of larger organisations, be it pure research

institutions or commercial enterprises with R&D as one department among others. While the size of an

organisation might be less important for non-experimental work, a large, well-endowed working

environment able to support an extensive array of instruments and workspaces is indispensable for

experimentally oriented scientific or engineering work. As suggested above, the ideal organisational

setting for creativity seems to be a large, highly diverse institution where small groups can easily

interact and profit from each other’s views, abilities and knowledge domains. In this section, some

conditions that are conducive for creativity in such an organisation are examined.

5.1 Organisational culture

Organisational culture has been defined as “a guideline or pattern of regular and predictable

activity, formed by a series of coordinated actions that are put into practice before a specific problem or

stimulus” (Claver 1998). In other words, it describes the way that an organisation deals with problems,

and indeed, what kind of problems it deems worthy dealing with. According to Cameron & Quinn

(1999), the culture of organisations or their departments can be represented as the four quadrants of a

system formed by the two axes “introversion – extroversion” and “flexibility – control” (figure 5).

Introversion represents care for people and efficiency, while extroversion reflects awareness of the

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

organisational environment. Flexibility is linked to adaptation and change, whereas control reflects

orientation towards top-down management and the application of formal rules and prescriptions. A

striking feature of this system is that though the concepts at the extremes of the axes are incompatible,

neither concept is per se superior to the other. The four organisational cultures represented as quadrants

are coined Clan (flexibility & introversion, a culture that seeks to please its members), Adhocracy

(flexibility & extroversion, a culture that seeks to broaden its horizon), Market (control & extroversion,

a culture that seeks to get things done), and Hierarchy (control & introversion, a culture that seeks to

ensure stability).

Figure 5: Organisational cultures (adapted from Cameron & Quinn (1999))

According to Claver et al. (1998), the ideal profile for creativity is Adhocracy: Openness for new

technologies (and change in general) and the readiness to take risks, both factors these authors identify

as creativity-promoting, are part of the ideals and values immanent to the Adhocracy culture. The

flexibility to react rapidly to new developments, to incorporate new technology, and to address new

problems and ideas as they arise, has also been found to be typical of highly creative research groups

(Heinze 2007). It is therefore advisable to create an Adhocracy type environment if high creativity is

desired, while alternative corporate cultures might be more valuable in other parts of a larger

organisation.

Typical features of a Hierarchy are well-established procedures and adherence to strict rules. They

are clearly detrimental to the establishment of an Adhocracy and should thus be avoided in an R&D

setting.

A willingness to take risks has already been mentioned as conducive to creativity several times. It

thus seems fitting to consider the risks posed by a creative approach to problem solving. The main risk

in taking a new path lies in abandoning a well-trodden one. This has to be done at a point in time when

it is not clear where the new path might lead to. The dilemma that novel, high potential methods

perform worse than long established concepts and procedures has been addressed by Young (2007). It

seems to be a general rule that in the beginning new methods have poorer performance than well-

established procedures. On the other hand, they have the potential to result in higher performance, if

enough effort and time are invested (figure 6). This is inherently associated with considerable risk, as it

is not clear what the potential performance of the novel method is: The chances that it will never

exceed the established, by-the-book procedure are considerable. In that case all the invested means and

efforts were futile. Practically, this risk can lead to the effect that “negative stereotypes and immediate

work demands can lead to a premature rejection of potentially valuable new ideas,” if no sufficient

emphasis is put on the introduction of novel ideas as a management principle (Mumford 2000). Again,

it seems to be essential to define “success” in a way that allows creative failure to be considered a

necessary step on the way to improved performance.

Joachim Burbiel

Figure 6: A risk associated with creativity lies in the unknown potential of method B (adapted

from Young (2007))

Since R&D has a time-lagged, sporadic, and non-market nature in relation to its outputs its success

is hard to evaluate by standard measures like turnover or revenue (Elkins & Keller 2003). This might

be the reason why organisations with a strong financial focus (Market type culture) tend to be less

innovative than strategically oriented enterprises. In Market type organisations, incremental innovation

can be viable, while the introduction of more radical ideas might require the creation of new divisions,

spinning off part of the company or licensing the technology to other enterprises (Mumford 2000).

Apart from that, market-oriented cultures will prefer stable groups, as the efficiency of well-rehearsed

teams is considerably higher than that of ad-hoc groups, which in turn exhibit a higher output of

creativity (see section 4.1).

The introverted nature of the Clan makes it less apt for creative work, at least in a technological

sense. Fisher et al. (2005) emphasise that integrating diversity, making all voices heard, and valuing

openness and transparency, all features typical of a Clan, are highly beneficial for the development of

social creativity. This creativity, however, is introverted, and might not be interested enough in what is

happening in the outside world to actively develop solutions for real world problems. On the other

hand, this tendency to ponder on its own issues makes the Clan very apt for the production of artistic

outcomes, where usefulness is not of paramount importance.

Finally, it has to be noted that the individual perception of organisational culture has a higher

influence on employees’ creativity than the actual, objective work environment (Schepers 2007).

Again, it is “in their heads” where creativity starts, and environmental factors will only influence their

state of mind in an indirect way.

5.2 Employee perception of environmental conditions

To determine the social factors of work-environment creativity, Schepers & van den Berg (2007)

evaluated 154 questionnaires completed by employees of the Civil Engineering Division of the Dutch

Ministry of Transport. They sum up their results by stating that work-environment creativity is

predominantly fostered by employee Adhocracy perception, the felt opportunity for employees to

participate in the decision making process, and the willingness of employees to share their knowledge.

Knowledge sharing, in turn, is encouraged if teams are perceived as cooperative (rather than

competitive) and if employees expect to be treated in a fair way (figure 7). It is again of special interest

that individual and group perceptions are of higher influence than measurable environmental facts. The

combination of employee participation, freedom of expression and high performance standards seems

to be most suitable for creativity and innovation in the eyes of these authors.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Figure 7: Factors conducive to work-environment creativity (adapted from Schepers & van

den Berg (2007))

On the other hand, a feeling of personal insecurity is detrimental to the development of creativity.

This feeling can be brought about by a seeming lack of support from the management (Wong 2003)

and will be drastically intensified by precarious work contracts (Heinze 2007).

5.3 Resources

Heinze (2007) found that major creative events (in the sense of scientific breakthroughs) are more

likely to occur in environments that provide some source of stable basic funding. He suggests that this

reliability gives substantial freedom to think, especially about matters of no immediate utility. At the

same time it reduces scientists’ time spent on money-raising. The highly creative scientists he

interviewed agreed that considerably more well-endowed multi-year awards should be granted to

scientists, especially in the ascending stage of their career.

Although the availability of resources is prerequisite for the effective performance of creative

work, there is some evidence that over-abundance may lead to a loss in efficiency, mainly due to a loss

of focus (Mumford 2000). In a similar manner, the introduction of a novel technology in itself might

decrease creativity. This happens if employees are confused by the introduction of a new process,

method or machine (Claver 1998).

Knowledge is the main resource for producing knowledge. Access to relevant data-bases,

literature and advanced computing facilities has been identified as a major requirement for creativity in

the case of aeronautical engineering by Young (2007). But sophisticated computational tools can be

double-edged swords: McMasters & Cummings (2002) caution against blind trust in simulation

software as in many cases software engineers have included so many of their own biases and

assumptions into the code that truly new ideas might well be determined as “beyond reality” if tested

with software of this kind.

Adequate buildings and working schedules can also be conducive to creativity. Some examples

are: (i) Leaving spaces for informal discussion (e.g. large staircases and coffee rooms), (ii) spatial

closeness between departments to foster interdisciplinary contacts, (iii) avoiding large offices with

many employees that might create an atmosphere where informal discussion is discouraged. Common

lunch breaks provide good opportunities of communication between employees of different

organisational areas. Schedules that allow and encourage this will also help to support creativity

(Heinze 2007).

6. CONCLUSIONS

Creativity research has contributed many practical guidelines on how to manage R&D in a way

that fosters creativity. Most suggestions do not require the raising of major funds, but it is often small

things that make a difference. It would certainly be desirable to create an ideal environment for

creativity by combining as many positive factors as possible, but even the well-considered adjustments

of a few parameters might have a considerable bearing on creativity.

Joachim Burbiel

Most of the proposals compiled in this review will support each other in the actual process of

enhancing creativity. Heinze (2007) has identified one particular set of contextual circumstances that,

combined with the individual talents of scientists, is highly likely to lead to creative research: “Many of

our highly creative researchers were recruited to these labs at an early stage in their careers, either as

postdocs or junior staff researchers, and integrated into a mission oriented research program while

giving them significant freedom to pursue the aspect of the overall program that they were most

interested in or excited about. […] The context for this sort of work was characterized by organisations

that provided significant job stability for its staff researchers, a base level of funding, […] and access to

a large diversity of skills and interdisciplinary knowledge across the organisation. These research

organisations were very well equipped with instruments and experimental capabilities that allowed the

pursuit of empirical research in any direction the problem might suggest and the expert operators to

yield reliable experimental results in a relatively short period of time. […] It was necessary to show a

degree of research entrepreneurship within the larger directed context in order to focus on the problem

of their interest and at the same time, the organisation provided the context and incentives for them to

do so.“

What could be hindrances to remodelling an R&D department or an academic unit in the ways

suggested? A major obstacle might be the fear of losing control by granting considerable freedom to

small research units. This is a dilemma indeed: Control seems to be detrimental to creativity, but at the

same time, some control of what is done in R&D is highly desirable for senior management. Two

suggestions to overcome this problem have been made: First, to make the overall goal of the

organisation very clear to every employee and second, to evaluate R&D regularly, keeping in mind that

highly innovative thinking is risky and thus a “failure” might be a sign that a creative approach has

been tried. The fact that it is not possible to plan the outcome of creativity might also lead to reluctance

in investing money in highly innovative R&D. There are examples of companies that have been ruined

by lack of return from costly but fruitless research activities, especially in the pharmaceutical sector. It

is thus generally suggested to hold both low-risk product enhancement projects and high-risk

innovation approaches in the research portfolio, a managerial practice easier to accomplish in large

companies than in small business units. Joint ventures and consortium building might be methods for

smaller organisations to share the burden of possible failure in highly innovative research.

Finally it should be noted that to be efficient and effective, innovative action must be constant, as

occasional or erratic efforts will probably not lead to any positive results (Claver 1998). It should have

become clear in the course of this paper that creativity and innovation are not a matter of action plans

and short-term campaigns, but have to be rooted in the very basic orientation of an organisation

(Schepers 2007).

As to R&D environments, there is hardly any doubt that scientific research on creativity is of

considerable value. Unfortunately, only few studies have specifically been conducted on R&D so far,

most notably the one by Heinze (2007). One issue raised in that study is reward. As the mechanism

behind popular reward systems for scientists and engineers has been found to be contra-productive

(section 3.1), novel systems that overcome these problems need to be devised and evaluated. Perhaps

the introduction of friendly contest could be a valuable means in this context (section 3.3). Another

issue that certainly wants closer examination is interdependence of motivation, reward and creativity.

Basic research in this field will certainly help to improve the effective managerial running of R&D

departments. Furthermore, the results of Heinze (2007) indicate that adequate buildings are beneficial

for creative work (section 5.3). It would be useful to determine what kind of R&D working

environment is most conducive for creativity and how these theoretical findings can be translated into

practical building guidelines.

The system that Cameron & Quinn (1999) have created to describe organisational culture appears

to be a valuable theoretical foundation for further research on creativity in different industrial settings

(section 5.1). It seems worthwhile to compare this theoretical framework with studies on corporate

culture to fathom out correspondences and inconsistencies.

Concerning theoretical considerations, there is a need to reconcile componential and sequential

theories that exist side by side without having many joints to connect them. Some ideas on how they

could be brought together have been outlined in section 2.3.

This review shows that some valuable research on workplace creativity in R&D environments has

already been conducted in recent years, but it also points out that a number of issues remain still

unresolved. As effective R&D is considered a main driving force in modern economies, further studies

should be carried out in this rewarding field of creativity research.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving

what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work

environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32.

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really matter?

The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569–586.

Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 103-121.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on

ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70.

Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based on the

competing values model. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D., & Molina, H. (1998). Organizational culture for innovation and new

technological behavior. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 9, 55–68.

Cooper, R. B., & Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group creativity: The effects of extrinsic, intrinsic, and

obligation motivations. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 153-172.

DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised

merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic

group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1549-1581.

Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature

review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 587–606

Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices:

Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

63, 482-512.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1992) The elusive definition of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,

26, 186-198.

Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 58, 5–20.

Heinze, T. (2007). Creativity capabilities and the promotion of highly innovative research in Europe

and the United States. Final Report, Reference Number: EU-NEST/CREA-511889,

https://www.crea.server.de/

Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2007). Kreativität - Konzept und Lebensstil. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck &

Ruprecht.

Kirton, M. (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. New York:

Routledge.

McMasters, J.H., & Cummings, R.M. (2002). Airplane design – past, present, and future. Journal of

Aircraft, 39, 10–17.

Morita, A., Reingold, E. M., & Shimomura, M. (1986). Made in Japan: Akio Morita and Sony. New

York: Dutton.

Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic

integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-24.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human

Resources Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.

National Academy of Engineering. Concerning federally funded sponsored inducement prizes in

engineering and science. Steering committee report, 30 April 1999, available from National

Academies Press at http://darwin.nap.edu/books/.

Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 524–535.

Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea

generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186-213.

Joachim Burbiel

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader

behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55,

120-151.

Schepers, P., & van den Berg, P. T. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407-428.

Scott, R. K. (1995). Creative employees: A challenge to managers. Journal of Creative Behavior,

29(1), 64-71.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual

factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53.

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: chance, logic, genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Springer, R. (1992). Ohne kreatives Klima geht nichts. In Effie-Jahrbuch 1992. Frankfurt: Deutscher

Fachverlag.

Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and

analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121-148.

Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996). A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects of

divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work-groups. British Journal of Social Psychology,

35, 151–167.

Vester, F. (1978). Denken, Lernen, Vergessen. München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Warner, C. How to manage creative people. Unpublished manuscript. University of Missouri,

Columbia from http:// www.charleswarner.us/mgtcreat.html

Weilerstein, P., Ruiz, F., & Gorman, M. (2003). The NCIIA: Turning Students into Inventors and

Entrepreneurs. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 45(6), 130-134.

Wong, S., & Pang, L. (2003). Motivators to creativity in the hotel industry - perspectives of managers

and supervisors. Tourism Management, 24, 551-559.

Young, T. M. (2007). Aircraft design innovation: Creating an environment for creativity. Journal of

Aerospace Engineering, 129, 165-174.