Jurnal 2 PDF
Jurnal 2 PDF
Jurnal 2 PDF
net/publication/46510531
CITATIONS READS
131 52,864
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Rentschler on 03 June 2014.
Contact author:
Dr Ian Fillis
Senior Lecturer
Department of Marketing
University of Stirling
Stirling FK9 4LA
Scotland, UK
Tel: 01786 467392
Fax: 01786 464745
e-mail: [email protected]
1
THE ROLE OF CREATIVITY IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Abstract:
This paper evaluates the contribution of creativity to entrepreneurship theory and
practice in terms of building an holistic and transdisciplinary understanding of its
impact. Acknowledgement is made of the subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship
which embraces randomness, uncertainty and ambiguity but these factors should then
be embedded in wider business and social contexts. The analysis is synthesised into a
number of themes, from consideration of its definition, its link with personality and
cognitive style, creativity as a process and the use of biography in uncovering data on
creative entrepreneurial behaviour. Other relevant areas of discussion include
creativity’s link with motivation, actualisation and innovation, as well as the
interrogation of entrepreneurial artists as owner/managers. These factors are
embedded in a critical evaluation of how creativity contributes to successful
entrepreneurship practice. Modelling, measuring and testing entrepreneurial creativity
are also considered and the paper includes detailed consideration of several models of
creativity in entrepreneurship. Recommendations for future theory and practice are
also made.
Introduction:
A change in the economy has been identified recently, moving from knowledge based
et al. 2008; Oke et al. 2009). Increasing globalisation and technology effects have
resulted in more business opportunities but the marketplace has also become more
crowded and competition has increased (McMullan and Shepherd 2006). Creativity
enables the entrepreneur to act on these opportunities in ways which can result in
competitive advantage for the organisation. It can provide the basis for innovation and
Entrepreneurship occurs in all types and sizes of organisations, from the domestic
process of creating value for business and social communities by bringing together
2
cultural opportunities in an environment of change. Creativity has been viewed as the
construction of ideas or products which are new and potentially useful (Amabile
innovation and profitability in monetary and social terms. These ideas can be
internally or externally located, although the entrepreneur will tend to search and
proactiveness. Innovation is the manner in which the entrepreneur searches for new
opportunities, or the way in which ideas are brought to a profitable conclusion. The
test of innovation lies in its success in the marketplace of ideas, rather than in its
perceptual response to the environment which may induce a high or low frequency of
creative endeavour. The term ‘creative intensity’ is used by Morris et al. (2003) to
illustrate the combined effects of the degree and frequency of creative behaviour at
3
further (Hirst et al. 2009). The contribution of creativity to today’s changing
Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009) call for more critical perspectives in researching
small firms and entrepreneurship and this paper adopts such an approach when
and this paper will show that creativity research in entrepreneurship needs to be
influenced by these and other diverse disciplines. Blackburn and Kovalainen identify
a number of mature, enduring and novel research topics in entrepreneurship but there
rules of convention, with even the smallest departure from the norm being deemed
creative. Young (1985) defines creativity as the actualising of our potential, involving
the integration of our logical side with our intuitive side. It can involve an advance in
thought but may also retain links with the past. Ford and Harris (1992) believe it to be
a modifiable and deliberate process which exists to some degree in everybody. Fillis
and Rentschler (2006) view creativity as being able to do imaginative and non-routine
(2007) view creativity as emerging from an interaction between the individual and the
4
Creativity has a diverse research base which can be highly complex (Mumford and
Gustafson 1988). Creativity research has implications for teaching and learning, and
impact of creativity on our lives, that a call has been made for the establishment of a
Creativity University, focusing on the teaching and nurturing of the art and skills of
which does not sit comfortably with academic scrutiny. The early twentieth century
creative thinking without substantiation through testing the validity of their thoughts.
However, there are now publications devoted to creativity research such as the
Journal of Creative Behavior and the Creativity Research Journal which have helped
expertise (Rich and Weisberg 2004) or as an ability (Vincent et al. 2002). Evidence
identify any longitudinal historical factors which have shaped it. Creativity has been
linked to genius and in science, business and art, a number of individuals have
5
attained heroic status through their creative philosophies, discoveries, practices and
human rather than scientific input. A number of attempts have been made at
interpretation has been able to capture its essence. Creativity is also viewed as a
central element in problem solving and there are a number of ways in which creative
orientation, it has also been shown that creativity for creativity’s own sake can result
The year 1950 has been viewed as a landmark in creativity research, when J.P.
Association. Until then, very few articles on creativity had been published, but after
the address output grew considerably. Since the 1960s research has focused on areas
is influenced by thinking styles, motivation and culture (Sternberg and O’Hara 1999).
Each individual is born with domain specific abilities; for example, some people are
more talented in art or music than others. Some commentators believe that creativity
can be taught, while others feel that it can only be facilitated. In some Masters
programmes, students are exposed to relevant creativity theory but they are then
paths of discovery are possible (Amabile 1983). Fillis and Rentschler (2006) show
6
that creative solutions need not be complex, especially in the business field where
relatively basic responses are capable of resulting in success for the organisation.
Links have been made between creativity and entrepreneurship for some time
(Whiting 1988; Lee et al. 2004). Stein (1974) claimed that creative ability and
entrepreneurial ability are separate constructs but this is now disputed (Gilad 1984).
technology and artistic creation and any connection with entrepreneurship was
confined to the application of the end product of a creative act. Whiting identified
task as the five main characteristics of the relatively more creative individual while
self-confidence, perseverance, high energy levels, calculated risk taking and the need
to achieve are seen as the top five characteristics of the relatively more
entrepreneurial individual. Other relevant factors include using one’s initiative and
being flexible. So, although there may be differences between the meanings of being
creative and being entrepreneurial, there are certainly a number of overlaps. These
Long 1990) but has tended to ignore the impact of the social environment. This
7
imbalance can be addressed by examining the contribution of creativity on
entrepreneurial growth, while also examining creativity throughout the lifetime of the
business. Lee et al. (2004) note that entrepreneurial activity not only requires both a
supportive and productive business climate but that it also needs an environment
where creativity and innovation can flourish. Having a strong and diverse knowledge
base, well developed business and social networks and an ability to identify
Ko and Butler 2007; Kijkuit and van den Ende 2007; Rosa et al. 2008); for example,
information outside a close social circle can result in new idea generation (Perry-
Smith 2006). A successful integration of creativity and technology can then lead to
commercialisation of the idea, product or service. The knowledge base can also be
novel, appropriate ideas to establish a new venture (Amabile 1997). This definition
1992; Woo and Daellenbach 1994), but fails to follow the growth of the business over
time. Entrepreneurial creativity, however, exists before, during and after the lifetime
of a particular business since it is shaped in part by the social world and by the
individual decision maker (Fillis and Rentschler 2006). There are also a number of
8
promise of rewards that confirm competence, support skill development, and
enable future achievement (Amabile 1997:18)
One inconsistency with this stance is the belief that the successful implementation of
creative ideas requires the input of a range of individuals working in teams. However,
less people, with often only one main decision maker, can also utilise creativity in
order to create competitive advantage in the marketplace (Cook 1998; Fillis 2002).
organisation’s resources, but decisions are also often made irrespective of the
resources available via the process of intuition. The entrepreneur must demonstrate
strong leadership by shaping business strategy and motivating employees via creative
thinking (Darling et al. 2007; de Jong and Den Hartog 2007). A leadership style
Kirkpatrick 1995; Frisch 1998; Becherer et al. 2008). This vision must be
communicated through appropriate informal and formal channels and across all levels
self initiated activity, creativity can lead to enhancing intrinsic motivation (Robinson
9
An organisational culture, which supports creativity, should nourish innovative
ways of representing problems and finding solutions and regard creativity as
both desirable and normal and consider innovators as role models to be
identified with (Locke and Kirkpatrick 1995).
strategic vision for the entrepreneurially led organisation (Markley 1988). Intuition
Kao (1989) sees creativity as a competitive strength while Carson et al. (1995) view it
as a key competency in small and medium sized enterprises and Bridge et al. (2003)
individual behaviours which then influence individual and group level creativity:
of creativity (Kirton 1976; Stacey 1996). With the former, the individual is content to
10
operate within an existing system or paradigm in order to improve upon it while, with
challenging existing thinking will occur and that any boundaries will be stretched or
even broken.
Filipczak (1997) promotes the need to have both adaptive and innovative creative
concepts, while innovative creativity relates to the invention of new and different
all play a part in an individual’s ability to see new ways of applying past experiences
and constructing alternative strategic directions. The working conditions within the
enterprise need to be flexible enough to allow for individual and group creativity.
Creativity may be easier to achieve within the smaller firm environment where
flexibility is a key factor in being able to address business opportunities (Poon and
Jevins 1997). The entrepreneur is more prepared to challenge existing practices and
implement changes when needed, rather than maintain the status quo.
Creativity can be used to deal with the ambiguity and uncertainty in decision making
by matching the nonlinear responses of the entrepreneur to that of the business world.
Smith and Shalley 2003). However, within new product development processes, it
11
does receive attention in terms of moves to reduce it in order to secure the desired
commercial effects. Creativity can also contribute to dealing with ambiguity. While
organisation is much better placed to deal with these circumstances than their
conservative counterparts.
research creativity; for example, there are merits in the construction of multivariate
models of creativity in attempting to explain its impact but its often intuitive and
intangible nature also lends itself to qualitative enquiry. Much creativity research
focus on specific aspects such as the qualities of the creative person, the creative
product, the creative process and the creative environment, rather than investigating
similarity between creative people working in particular fields (Mace 1997). The
creative activities of visual artists have been investigated using a qualitative approach
12
approach would provide theory that was driven by the research participants
themselves, thus providing additional, and possibly insightful, material about
the construct creativity (Mace 1997:266).
Evaluating the creativity of entrepreneurial artists can uncover data which is also of
(1963) viewed the process of making art as a problem solution problem continuum
and Fillis and Rentschler (2006) have shown how this notion can be applied to the
entrepreneurial artists Salvador Dali, Vincent Van Gogh, Pablo Picasso and Andy
Warhol. A work of art serves as a biography of an artist’s life, providing the viewer
with insight into their creative personality. In the same fashion that products are given
meaning by the way in which they are positioned in the marketplace, the artist gives
meaning to the artwork. In both cases, there are also social and economic forces
which impact. The main thrust of this examination is that the creative philosophy of
the artist can be compared similarly to that of the entrepreneur (Fillis 2004; Fillis and
Rentschler 2005). Even though the creative process is complex, decision making is
P4: It is proposed that investigation of the artistic decision making process can
and personality points of view (Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1990), thereby gaining
13
Beck (1990) believes that the 4Ps interpretation of creativity is limited since it focuses
on creativity solely from a psychological perspective. The link with innovation, and
P5: It is proposed that instead of focusing solely on the creative individual, it is better
Nayak talks about the use of an operating logic or ‘feel for the game’ when searching
for creative solutions. This matches the intuitive abilities of the entrepreneur as part of
his or her wider competency spectrum. Nayak believes that the literature on creativity
can be divided into the levels of the individual and the organisation but this
perspective omits the wider environmental and social factors which also influence
creativity. He also dismisses the value in researching poets, artists and scientists in
which uncovers valuable data on the individual but also grounds the findings
There is also a growing body of work within management studies which analyses the
Brownlie 1998; Monthoux 2004). Rather than reducing management activities down
to economic aspects alone with managers and their actions displaced to the
background, the manager can be visualised as the creator of acts of management. Both
14
management practice and research can be thought of in terms of styles or schools
where different, and even opposing forms are evident, from the autocratic to an
entrepreneurial approach. Instead of thinking outside of the box, Kupp and Anderson
(2009) advocate thinking outside of the canvas as they examine the artistic managerial
qualities of the artist Joseph Beuys. He identified three levels of creativity: the active
and social sculpture or collective creativity. Kupp and Anderson note that when
routine solutions are not suitable for addressing strategic, leadership and other
organisational issues with no precedents, there should be a quest for non routine
creative solutions. Grounded in the Austrian economics school and the uncertainty
learning are central components. Kor et al. (2007) further embrace individual
in the resources, skills and knowledge of the individual as he or she seeks to discover
The paper now develops a detailed analysis of additional themes within creativity
research which are relevant for entrepreneurship theory and practice, including its
impact on personality and cognitive style and the subsequent implications for decision
15
creative and the impact of creativity in business generally. The paper also assesses
how we might best model, measure and test for entrepreneurial creativity.
constructs such as personality, cognitive style and trait theory help to uncover how
successful ideas occur as the result of a balance between the new and the familiar in
order to ensure that radical ideas are not rejected. However, creativity is concerned
with both incremental steps and paradigm shifts, so radical ideas should not be
dismissed. Ideas, however, cannot be created at will and often emanate from the
fringe of consciousness, rather than as the result of linear rational thinking (Dasgupta
1994). Utilising a network perspective, useful ideas tend to be the result of having
non-redundant and heterogeneous contacts which permit idea generation through the
which are only related to the individual in question but not to each other, while
perspective goes some way to explain why most new products are really only line
extensions, rather than totally new entities (Kuczmarski 1996). Some of the
from a familiar domain to a new or less known domain (Gentner et al. 2001), as well
as conceptual combination:
16
…when two previously separate concepts or images are merged into a single
unit, novel properties can emerge that were not obviously present in either of
the separate components, and that the effect is particularly strong for dissimilar
or divergent concepts. Such novelty can be exploited to develop new product
ideas or market niches. by Ward (2004:174)
This closely relates to the notion of transmutation of thought (Warhol 1975) and
bisociation, while analogy has connections with the use of metaphor in rationalising
construction, analogy works best when there is a deeper level connection between the
domains, rather than merely at the surface level. These techniques work because in
reality individuals do not make linear rational decisions when problem solving.
Study of the relationship between creativity and personality tends to take one of three
since it would be expected that any such theory should account for creative behaviour,
details of any personality characteristics contained within it, future creative behaviour
can be understood and even predicted. Barron and Harrington (1981:453), for
example, identified the following creative characteristics following a fifteen year long
research programme:
17
concept, and finally, a firm sense of self as ‘creative’) continued to emerge as
correlates of creative achievement and activity in many domains.
Many of these factors are also firmly rooted in the entrepreneurship literature where
decision maker personality impacts on the future direction of the organisation (Lau
and Schaffer 1999; Williams 2004; Fillis and Rentschler 2006). Fillis (2007a)
appear stable over time and which should be incorporated into subsequent modelling
of the entrepreneurial decision making process. These factors include self-belief and
ability to break down physical and perceptual barriers. Other contributing factors
include the adoption of a variety of problem solving styles and divergent thinking.
The ability to make associations between previously unconnected domains also draws
which the creative entrepreneur is particularly good at doing. Creativity can also be
P6: It can therefore be proposed that the entrepreneur exhibits more imagination than
18
The personality of an individual consists of a unique pattern of traits which ensures
that each individual differs from another. Behaviour traits consist of aptitudes,
the trait patterns which shape the characteristics of creative persons (Guilford 1950).
internal and external influences on the outcomes of actions, self esteem, dogmatism
and narcissism. Examining creativity from a trait perspective alone can have limited
impact, given that the social environment has also been shown to impact upon
2000). Positive personality traits of creative individuals include high levels of energy,
Feist 1999). These factors are also located within the entrepreneurial personality.
Insight into the creative personality of the entrepreneur can be achieved through the
not necessarily be identified using the survey or interview method alone. Approaches
used include the analysis of the allotted space in biographical dictionaries for each
through biographical analysis of the individual, from their birth, socialisation, through
to establishment and growth of the business and beyond into later life. Recent work
biography, or ‘story’, of the organisation and its managers where both historical and
19
current data can be compared and contrasted (Carson and Carson 1998; Gabriel
2000). The adoption of a longitudinal research approach is one way of securing an in-
depth appreciation of the creative entrepreneur and the world in which he/she is
located. The merits of this technique include the ability to triangulate data on
itself is a creative medium, in terms of the way in which the story of the individual,
organisation or other entity is told. This and other narrative techniques can be used to
rethink entrepreneurship through their juxtapositioning with the arts and humanities;
for example, researchers have interrogated literature and other narrative forms as
(Downing 2005).
has been shaped, in part, by a range of social factors (Amabile 1996; Perry-Smith and
particularly intricate, given the many intangible dimensions involved. The creative
The first stage is problem identification, during which the problem solvers
recognise, define, and attempt to understand the problem or the opportunity
facing them. The second is preparation, during which the problem-solvers
gather information and other resources necessary to tackle the problem or
pursue the opportunity. The third stage is response generation, during which
various ideas for solving the problem or pursuing the opportunity are designed.
The fourth stage, validation and communication, involves the consideration of
20
the ideas generated, selection among them, and formalisation or communication
of the selected approach (Amabile 1997:23).
The creative act can be viewed as an extended, variable process rather than something
individuals originating the idea, the gatekeepers who represent the field or society,
and the culture or domain within which creativity occurs. These factors then interact
in order to interrogate and validate the new ideas. Viewing creativity as a process is
valuable but it also suggests that a certain sequence of events is inevitable. In reality
progression may not be linear and some stages may be leapfrogged or omitted
Creativity may be part of an individual’s innate makeup but only a small proportion of
the population fully actualise their creative potential since not everyone is motivated
P7: It can be proposed that entrepreneurs are more likely to actualise their creative
21
There are also crucial differences between intrinsic and extrinsic creative motivation
People will be most creative when they are primarily intrinsically motivated, by
the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself; this
intrinsic motivation can be undermined by extrinsic motivators that lead people
to feel externally controlled in their work (Amabile 1998:1157).
development it is clear that, although increasing their profit levels is a factor, being
able to shape and grow the business and its workforce are also key motivating factors.
personnel in an organisation who carry out a task because they feel they enjoy the
reached which is separate from the act of doing the work, or when a constraint
behaviour which is heavily involved in the activity at hand since they are free from
extraneous concerns about goals extrinsic to the activity itself. It would be expected
that this is the case for the entrepreneur. They exhibit playfulness with their ideas
because of their freedom to take risks and ability to explore new cognitive pathways.
Mainemelis and Ronson (2006) consider how ideas are generated through the
interaction of play and creativity within organisations. Play helps to stimulate the
cognitive, affective and motivational aspects of the creative process and there is even
a case for considering the merits of play as part of creativity for its own sake. Here,
22
the usual linear, rational path. Individuals may even experience positive affect while
carrying out their work. Those who are mainly extrinsically motivated tend to be
concerned with the extrinsic goal to be attained and will not be as deeply involved in
the activity. They feel less able to take risks and will rely more on well-worn
cognitive pathways and experience less positive affect while working (Amabile et al.
1990). In new venture start-ups, extrinsic motivation issues might focus on heightened
external visibility while intrinsic motivation could concern the wishes to develop a
Today, creativity appears more important than ever before, with it being seen as a
critical success factor for organisations (Basadur and Hausdorf 1996). The
Although effectiveness and efficiency have long been viewed as central organisational
requirements, creativity is now also deemed a core success factor, with organisational
creativity resulting in higher levels of quality and customer satisfaction. The nature of
the business environment is changing, with more and more turbulent conditions being
experienced (Agor 1991; Mason 2007). Creative leadership is often deemed more
appropriate than conventional managerial methods in the quest to deal with these non-
(Brownlie and Spender 1995; Brownlie 1998). Intuitive decision making is deemed an
23
environment, where the generation of a range of alternative directions can be
behaviour.
Although creativity has yet to be fully embraced in the business world due to varying
attitudes towards risk and change, organisations of all sizes are now realising the
factor in the longer term wellbeing of the organisation. This orientation should then
lead to openness to innovation and acceptance of new ideas which can benefit the
company (Salford 1995; Berthon et al. 1999). The majority of firms are small, and the
majority of these are microenterprises employing ten people or less where business
growth and behaviour is often influenced by a single owner/manager who may not
1994; Bridge et al. 2003). However, individuals in all sizes of organisation who
exhibit entrepreneurial tendencies are much more likely to embrace creativity than
those who do not demonstrate entrepreneurial ability (Bennett 2006; Day et al. 2006).
Creativity has been identified as a core organisational competency (Palus and Horth
2002) and the creativity of key decision makers is of vital importance in shaping
have all been found to contribute to heightened innovative performance through their
ability to extend existing strengths while also shaping new skills (Teece et al. 1997;
There are also connections between creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship in the
24
creativity but it is also influenced by the creative process and creative ability of those
also requires the ability to know what is not creative. In line with what has been found
in the new product development literature where the vast majority of ‘new’ products
are really only existing product extensions (Casto 1994; Coats et al. 1997), Magyari-
Beck (1990) found no example of creation which was not an application of an existing
model. At first glance the product does appear new but over time it is viewed as a
shifts do occur occasionally and creativity can sometimes result in the establishment
of an entity with little or no prior connections with other spheres; for example, via the
innovation in that creativity is seen as the production of novel and useful ideas within
within an organisation.
The creativity in individuals and teams is often the origin for innovation. Akehurst et
al. (2009) believe that, instead of focusing on individual talent, the heads of
There is still a focus on the single heroic entrepreneurial figure and this must now be
25
entrepreneurship (Casson and Wadeson 2007) and is closely related to the notion of
up, where creative thinking and innovative behaviours originate from employees
rather than the entrepreneur has been referred to as intrapreneurship (Huse et al.
2005). However, Fillis (2007a) has shown that focusing on a single entrepreneurial
decision maker is still relevant, as long as his or her role is defined within wider social
The link between creativity, innovation and environmental variables has been
Howell and Boies 2004). Collaborations can sometimes result in the development and
and autonomy, has also been found to impact on creativity (Anderson et al. 1998;
West 2002):
P8: It can therefore be proposed than an entrepreneurial culture can have a positive
Both Mumford et el. (2002) and Amabile et al. (2004) also found that leader support
P9: It can therefore be further proposed that an entrepreneurial culture has a higher
probability of resulting in support for the leader as an entrepreneur than other forms of
26
This also has an impact on the level of innovation in the organisation. An
employee/manager/customer interactions.
A number of creativity models have been constructed but, to date, very few have been
able to account for the subjective nature of creative activity. The componential model
enterprise. Other relevant factors include the resources available to assist creative
work such as sufficient time and appropriate training, management practices and the
construction of work teams with contrasting skills. Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1990)
viewed as precursors to the current attitudes and behaviour of the individual towards
creativity. Their model promotes the belief that creativity is fundamentally process led
but there is now ample evidence as shown in this paper to show that this is not the
model of innovation and creativity implementation among groups at work, noting that
the environment can hinder creativity but that any uncertainty can serve to drive
noting that the basic four stage model may need to be superceded, as also noted earlier
27
in this paper. Figure 1 illustrates the impact and benefits of creativity in
behaviour. Additional important factors include the influence of the social world, the
effect of cognitive skills and both creative and entrepreneurial competencies such as
advantage.
Take in Figure 1
measure it. These include viewing it as involving the production of new and original
content, as a creative product which can involve more than just creative
Creativity has also been measured using tests of divergent thinking, attitude and
teachers, peers and supervisors, the tangibilising of creativity through the creation of
products, the study of eminent people and self-reported creative activities and
believes that creativity tests are actually only measures of creative potential due to
their inability to account for factors such as technical skills and opportunity.
understanding how creative individuals behave in different ways, rather than being
28
individual reacts to the problem being posed. Expected creativity occurs when there is
even though he or she has no direct initial involvement. Proactive creativity is driven
by an internal motivation to seek out problems to solve. This last category appears to
have the best fit with entrepreneurial creativity where the owner/manager actively
seeks out business opportunities. This orientation also matches the notion of the
proactive personality (Bateman and Crant 1993) and the concept of personal initiative
(Frese et al. 1996). These different orientations can be compared with the four
internationalisation. Differing forms of creativity are located in the four craft firm
work in the craft industry because of the type of lifestyle involved and are unwilling
to sacrifice this in order to expand the business. These creative types are called
risks with both the business and the product, while recognising the importance of
idealist who is unwilling to view the craft as a product but as a creative object. They
take risks as far as the craft itself is concerned in order to break new ground and they
can be innovative and certainly creative with the craft product. The fourth creative
type, the late developer, enters the industry much later than the others, having gained
it is often associated with unusual solutions to solving problems. Creativity, and the
29
resultant innovation, often develops through juxtapositions of previously unconnected
logical thinking does have its purposes, continual adoption of this often sequential
approach serves to omit many potentially useful associations which might otherwise
to adopt the social psychological perspective of Amabile and others in terms of how
we view creativity, this then provides a useful connection across domains, from the
sciences to the social sciences and entrepreneurship. Many measures of creativity and
environment.
creativity solely through the application of Likert-type attitudinal scales (Likert 1932;
30
dimensions and move beyond the often rigid frameworks of testing variable
globalisation and technology which impact on the enterprise and its members in terms
the individual, team, organisation through to the particular industry and beyond. In
order to realise the full creative potential of the enterprise, in-depth understanding of
problem solving and decision making activities which embrace factors such as
developed which accounts for both scientific and artistic ways of knowing which are
influenced by cross disciplinary and diverse domains. This paper has suggested a
research which can help inform future research activities and it is hoped that other
Take in Figure 2
Increasing globalisation effects drive the need for greater creativity within a
marketplace with increased levels of opportunity but also with heightened levels of
capitalising on these opportunities. This paper has shown that there is a clear link
establishing competitive advantage for the organisation. It should also be noted that
profitability should be measured not just in monetary terms, but also in relation to
creativity can assist in breaking the rules of convention, or at the very least, stretching
31
their boundaries in order to achieve both incremental and ground breaking success.
just within the business world; for example, this paper has shown how interrogation of
domains such as the art world, biography and psychology can inform understanding.
led phenomenon.
many creative characteristics such as curiosity, self confidence, high energy levels,
risk taking and vision. Entrepreneurial creativity impacts throughout the lifetime of
the entrepreneur, and not just during the span of the business. Success is stimulated
through the use of juxtapositioning and bisociations of ideas from diverse and often
unrelated domains which then impact on decision making. Although there are
creativity also helps to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity in decision making and
within the external environment. Rather than ignoring these dimensions, it acts to
32
In terms of future research, if we are to improve our understanding of creativity from
Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009) note the reservations by many researchers to adopt
common techniques such as the survey and in-depth interviews have their uses but
researching creativity must involve much more than just asking set questions or
for example, can be triangulated with the more usual approaches in order to check for
stability in the constructs being analysed and in terms of generating more holistic and
insight can be used to construct the longitudinal story of the entrepreneur and the
organisation while also identifying the impact of social and historical factors on
shaping creativity.
lower cost solutions to solving problems. Many of these organisations have specialist
skills relating to their core products and services but do not have the expertise or the
time to develop formal ways of generating future strategies as occurs in the larger
organisation. This being the case, understanding creativity as leverage to lower cost
but no less useful solutions is crucial to future economic success. Future research
33
conflict with more mainstream methodological approaches. It is this conflict and the
creation of juxtapositions between previously unrelated fields which can result in new
34
References:
Akehurst, G., Comeche, J.M. and Galindo, M-A. (2009). “Job satisfaction and
commitment in the entrepreneurial SME”, Small Business Economics, Vol.32, pp.277-
289.
Amabile, T. (1983), The Social Psychology of Creativity, New York, Springer Verlag.
Amabile, T. (1998), “How to kill creativity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No.
5, pp.77-88
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the
work environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No 4,
pp.1154-1184
Amabile, T., Goldfarb, P., and Brackfield, S. (1990). “Social influences on creativity:
evaluation, coaction, and surveillance”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 50, pp.14-
23.
Amabile, T.M, Schatzell, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004). “Leader
behaviours and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol.15, pp.5-32.
Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998). “Measuring climate for work group
innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol.19, pp.235-258.
35
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993). “The proactive component of organizational
behaviour: a measure and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.14,
pp.103-118.
Baumol, W. (2002). The Free Market Innovation Machine: Analysing the Growth
Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Becherer, R.C., Mendenhall, M.E. and Eickhoff, K.F. (2008). “Separated at birth: an
inquiry on the conceptual independence of the entrepreneurship and the leadership
constructs”, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol.11, No.2, pp.13-27.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L.F. (1999). “To serve or create? Strategic
orientations toward customers and innovation”, California Management Review,
Vol.42, No.1, pp.37-58.
Brownlie, D. (1998). “High minds and low deeds: on being blind to creativity in
strategic marketing”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.6, pp.117-130.
36
Bullinger, H.J., Aurnhammer, K. and Gomeringer, A. (2004). “Managing innovation
networks in the knowledge-driven economy”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol.42, pp.3337-3344.
Burt, R.S. (2004). “Structured holes and good ideas”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol.110, pp.349-399.
Carson, P.P. and Carson, K.D. (1998). “Theoretically grounding management history
as a relevant and valuable form of knowledge”, Journal of Management History,
Vol.4, No.1, 29-42.
Cawelti, S., Rappaport, A., and Wood, B. (1992). “Modelling artistic creativity: An
empirical study”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 83-94.
Cook, P. (1998). “The creativity advantage - is your organisation the leader of the
pack?”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 179-184.
Cropley, A.J. (2000). “Defining and measuring creativity: are creativity tests worth
using?”, Roeper Review, Vol.23, No.2, pp.72-79.
37
Day, J., Reynolds, P. and Lancaster, G. (2006). “Entrepreneurship and the small to
medium-sized enterprise: a divergent/convergent paradox in thinking patterns
between advisers and SME owner-managers”, Management Decision, Vol.44, No.5,
pp.581-597.
Davis, M.A. (2009). “Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: a
meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.108,
pp.25-38.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
Human Behavior, New York, Plenum.
Degot, V. (1987), ”Portrait of the manager as an artist”, Dragon: The SCOS Journal,
Special Issue: Art and the Organization, Vol.2,No.3, pp.13-50.
De Jong, J.P.J. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’
innovative behaviour”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.10, No.1,
pp.41-64.
Feist, G.J. (1999). “The Influence of Personality on Artistic and Scientific Creativity”,
in R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 273-296.
Filipczak, B. (1997). “It takes all kinds: creativity in the workforce”, Training, Vol
34, No.5, pp.32-39.
Fillis, I. (2002). “An Andalusian dog or a rising star: creativity and the
marketing/entrepreneurship interface’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18
No.3/4, pp.379-395.
Fillis, I. (2004), ‘The entrepreneurial artist as marketer – lessons from the smaller firm
literature’, International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 9-21.
38
Fillis, I. (2006). “Art for art’s sake or art for business sake: an exploration of artistic
product orientation’, The Marketing Review, Vol.6, No.1, pp.29-40.
Ford, D.V. and Harris, J.J. (1992). “The elusive definition of creativity”, Journal of
Creative Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 186-198.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose , A. and Zempel, J. (1996). “Personal initiative at work:
differences between East and West Germany”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol.39, pp.37-63.
Gentner, D., Holyoak, K.J. and Kokinov, B.N.(Eds.) (2001). The Analogical Mind:
Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
39
Hisrich, R. D. (1992), “The Need for marketing in entrepreneurship,” The Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol.7, No.3, pp.53-57.
Hunter, S.T., Bedell, K.E. and Mumford, M.D. (2007). “Climate for creativity: a
quantitative review”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.19, No.1, pp.69-90.
Huse, M., Neubaum, D.O. and Gabrielson, J. (2005). “Corporate innovation and
competitive environment”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol.1, pp.313-333.
Kijkuit, B. and van den Ende, J. (2007). “The organisational life of an idea:
integrating social network, creativity and decision making perspectives”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol.44, No.6, pp.863-882.
Kirton, M.J. (1976). “Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol.61, pp.622-629.
Ko, S. and Butler, J.E. (2006). “Prior knowledge, bisociative mode of thinking and
entrepreneurial opportunity identification”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, Vol.3, No.1, pp.3-16.
Ko, S. and Butler, J.E. (2007). “Creativity: a key link to entrepreneurial behaviour”,
Business Horizons, Vol.50, pp.365-372.
Kor, Y.Y., Mahoney, J.T. and Michael, S.C. (2007). “Resources, Capabilities and
Entrepreneurial Perceptions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.44, No.7,
pp.1187-1212.
40
Lau, V.P. and Schaffer, M.A. (1999). “Career success: the effects of personality”,
Career Development International, Vol.4, No.4, pp.225-230.
Lee, S.Y., Florida, R. and Acs, Z.J. (2004). “Creativity and entrepreneurship: a
regional analysis of new firm formation”, Regional Studies, Vol.38, No.8, pp.879-
891.
Lokshin, B., Van Gils, A. and Bauer, E. (2009). “Crafting firm competencies to
improve innovative performance”, European Management Journal, Vol.27, pp.187-
196.
Lubart, T.L. (2001). “Models of the creative process: past, present and future”,
Creativity Research Journal, Vol.13, Nos.3/4, pp.295-308.
Mainemalis, C. and Ronson, S. (2006). “Ideas are born in fields of play: towards a
theory of play and creativity in organizational settings”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol.27, pp.81-131.
Markley, O.W. (1988). “Using depth intuition in creative problem solving and
strategic innovation”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.22 No.2, pp.85-100.
Mason, R.B. (2007), “The external environment’s effect on management and strategy:
a complexity theory approach”, Management Decision, Vol.45, No.1, pp.10-28.
41
McFadzean, E. (1998), “Enhancing creative imagination within organisations”,
Management Decision, Vol.36, No.5, pp.309-315.
McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1990). Developing New Ventures: The
Entrepreneurial Option, Harcourt, Orlando, FL.
McMullan, J.S. and Shepherd, D.A. (2006). “Entrepreneurial action and the role of
uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol.31, No.1, pp.132-152.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M, Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002). “Leading creative
people: orchestrating expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.13,
pp.705-750.
Nystrom, H. (1979). Creativity and Innovation, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Oke, A., Munshi, N. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009). “”The influence of leadership on
innovation processes and activities”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.38, No.1, pp.64-
72.
Palus, C.J. and Horth, D.M. (2002). The Leader's Edge: Six Creative Competencies
for Navigating Complex Challenges, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006). “Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in
facilitating individual creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, pp.85-
101.
42
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “The social side of creativity: a static and
dynamic social network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.28, No.1,
pp.89-106.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, New York, Norton.
Rich, J.D. and Weisberg, R.W. (2004). “Creating all in the family: a case study in
creative thinking”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.16, pp.247-259.
Rosa, J.A., Qualls, W.J. and Fuentas, C. (2008). “Involving mind, body and friends:
management that engenders creativity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.61,
pp.631-639.
Rothenberg, A. (1979), The Emerging Goddess: The Creative Process in Art, Science,
and Other Fields, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
Sapp, D.D. (1992). “The point of creative frustration and the creative process: a new
look at an old model”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 21-28.
43
Shalley, C.E. (1991). “Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal
discretion on individual creativity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, 179-185.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004). “The effects of personal and
contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of
Management, Vol.30, pp.933-958.
Stein, M.I. (1974). Stimulating creativity: Vol. 1. Individual procedures. New York:
Academic Press.
Sternberg, R.J. and O’Hara, L.A. (1999). “Creativity and intelligence”, in R.J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 251-272.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, No.7, pp.509-533.
Vincent, P.H., Decker, B.P. and Mumford, M.D. (2002), “Divergent thinking,
intelligence and expertise: a test of alternative models”, Creativity Research Journal,
Vol.14, pp.163-178.
Warhol, A. (1975). The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again),
Harcourt Brace, San Diego, CA.
44
West, M.A. (2002). “Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of
creative and innovation implementation in work groups”, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, Vol.51, pp.355-387.
Woodman, R.W. and Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1990). “An interactionist model of creative
behaviour”, Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol.24 No.4, pp.279-290.
Young, J.G. (1985). “What is creativity?”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 19, No.
2, pp. 77-87.
Young, R.M. (1988). “Biography: the basic discipline for human science”, Free
Associations, Vol. 11, pp. 108-130.
45
Figure 1: Creativity in Entrepreneurship
Creativity as:
Competitive advantage, strategic weapon ,
embedded philosophy, contributing to
employer and employee motivation,
problem solving and improved
performance
46
47