See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316644491

Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and

Practice

Book · May 2017

DOI: 10.1142/10086

CITATIONS READS

16 18,721

2 authors, including:

Min Tang
Hochschule für angewandtes Management
72 PUBLICATIONS   460 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Academic Lecturers vs Researches View project

Creativity and Innovation in Times of Crisis (COVID-19) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Min Tang on 14 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Chapter 18
Essentials of the Management
of Creativity and Innovation
in Education, Business,
and Engineering
Christian H. Werner and Min Tang

18.1 Introduction
Though in recent years the importance of creativity and innovation has caught more
and more attention in different fields and countries, very seldom are these two
closely related phenomena discussed within the scope of one book. Zhou and Shalley
(2008) noticed the separation of the creativity and innovation studies, and urged
that it is time to seriously consider how these two largely separate research streams
can inform each other and benefit from each other. They proposed, “In order to do
that, we need to do a better job of talking to each other across disciplines” (p. 360).
The current book is an attempt to answer this call. We present our approach to
unveil the seemingly simple actually complex relationship between creativity and
innovation and showcase some concrete managerial examples from different disci-
plines and cultures. The purpose of this volume is to bridge the gap between the
creativity and innovation studies across disciplines and cultures. To be more exact,
we discuss creativity and innovation in the framework of management. With a col-
lection of theories and cases studies of the management of creativity and innovation,
we showcase how creativity and innovation are perceived, studied, and managed in
different fields and cultures. We hope that this book inspires more research and
training collaborations across disciplines, cultures at different levels, thus helping to

347

b2590_Ch-18.indd 347 3/1/2017 1:17:53 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

348  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

obtain broader and more in-depth understanding of the management of creativity

and innovation.
In this chapter, we conclude the whole book by summarizing the main topics and
themes discussed in this volume with an attempt to identify the essentials of the
management of creativity in the different fields that the current book deals with,
namely the fields of education, business, and engineering.

18.2 Conceptual Understanding of Creativity, Innovation,

and Management
In line with the opinions of creativity scholars, particularly those from the field of
organizational creativity, Tang (Chapter 1, this volume) posits that creativity and
innovation are closely related but not identical concepts and, therefore, need to be
distinguished for research and management purposes. Synthesizing the existing litera-
ture about the defining features of creativity and innovation, the author proposes that
the balance between novelty (originality, newness) and practicality (appropriateness,
effectiveness) at four perspectives can be used to discern these two concepts: the indi-
vidual perspective (more weight on idea generation or idea application/implementa-
tion), the social perspective (more weight on benefits or not), the motivational
perspective (more weight on intrinsic or extrinsic motivation), and the essential bal-
ance of the two defining criteria (absolute novelty vs. relative novelty, originality vs.
effectiveness). Sternberg and Kaufman (2010) call the balance between novelty and
quality (appropriateness, effectiveness) the “definitional constraint” of creativity and
warn that “creativity is not and cannot be simply about sitting around, brainstorming,
and coming up with wildly imaginative ideas. There are always constraints on creativ-
ity…What has changed the world is not merely the potential for creativity, but crea-
tivity as manifested in functional products” (pp. 468–469). What they mean by
“creativity as manifested in functional products” here is literally what the organiza-
tional psychologists call “innovation”. The warning here implies that though the link
between creativity and innovation seems obvious and logical, creativity cannot always
be transformed into innovation due to the existence of various constraints. The man-
agement of creativity and innovation under constraints will be a separate topic of this
chapter.
Responding to the fact that creativity and innovation are quite often used in
­parallel to a number of similar concepts, Tang (Chapter 1, this volume) further distin-
guishes creativity and innovation from discovery, design, invention, and entrepreneur-
ship. She summarizes that discovery is frequently used in science and geography, and
emphasizes the finding of something unexpected. Frequently used in arts, engineering
and technology, design stresses the planning of making some concrete artifacts. Closely
related to technology and engineering, invention is a complex innovative process

b2590_Ch-18.indd 348 3/1/2017 1:17:53 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  349

around design and problem solving. Almost exclusively used in business, entrepreneur-
ship is used to describe insightful individuals capable of using information and
resources to implement innovations and create values.
To achieve scientific understanding of creativity and innovation, it is inevitable
to touch the old yet crucial controversy of the nature and nurture of creativity.
Gruszka and Dobroczynski (Chapter 2) approach this topic by reviewing the studies
about the genetics, neuroanatomical, and social foundations of creativity. Genetic
studies of creativity show that many genetic factors influence creativity, but the quan-
tity and character of genes behind the differences in creativity is not yet clear. They
argue that the missing heritability of creativity is accounted by the fact that creativity
is an emergenic trait (Lykken, 1982), which is not determined by the mere sum of
genetic factors, but by the interaction of the factors. Their review of brain studies
refutes the commonly accepted association between left brain and creativity (also see
Kaufman et al., 2010). They argue that there is no single locus for creativity in the
human brain — neither left nor right nor any other brain region alone represents
creativity. Rather, creative thinking entails many different cognitive and conative
mechanisms, which engage many brain areas. From the social perspective, they draw
on studies on creative thinking training/techniques and studies of expert perfor-
mance and find ample evidence on the role of extreme environmental adaptation and
learning in creativity. Thus, they conclude that biological processes influence primar-
ily the development of creative potential, whereas environmental factors (particularly
learning) affect the long-range processes of creative achievement.
In addition to the discussion about the definition of creativity and innovation
and the origin of creativity, this volume also summarizes the creativity and innovation
studies (Tang, Chapter 1). Following the three major waves of creativity studies of
Sawyer (2012) (i.e., the personality, cognitive and sociocultural approaches) and the
innovation studies using the four-level analysis proposed by Anderson, Potočnik, and
Zhou (2014) (i.e., individual, team, organizational, and multiple levels), Tang under-
scores the necessity of adopting a systems approach for both creativity and innovation
studies. This call was explicitly echoed by Gruszka and Tang (Chapter 3) in their
introduction of the theory and application of the 4P’s Creativity Model (Rhodes,
1961), Reichert (Chapter 8) in his argumentation about the manageability of creativ-
ity and innovation, and Schmidt (Chapter 6) in his discussion about the management
of creativity and innovation in education.
Another focus of the book is management. Conceptualizing management as the
efficient use of available resources with the aim to achieve designated goals, Reichert
(Chapter 8) attaches importance to the differentiation of different types of innovation.
Possible additions to his list can be the exploitative vs. exploratory innovation
(Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991), which is similar to the distinction of incre-
mental vs. radical innovation (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). A recent meta-analysis

b2590_Ch-18.indd 349 3/1/2017 1:17:53 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

350  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

involving 88 studies and over 20,000 participants shows that exploratory and exploit-
ative innovation can be pursued simultaneously at the organizational level and sug-
gests under which institutional conditions firms benefit most from which form of the
innovation (Mueller, Rosenbusch, & Bausch, 2013). Also the manageability of crea-
tivity and innovation has been empirically proven. With a large-scale study involving
over 1,300 managers from 19 countries, Epstein et al. (2013, p. 370) discovered that
the creativity managerial competencies were significantly higher for the managers who
received creativity management training and the level of the competencies was posi-
tively related with the number of hours of training the managers got. However, their
study also shows that most managers investigated lack the skills that are essential for
encouraging workplace creativity. They urged that “the management of creativity
should not be left to chance” and managers should get training about the management
of creativity and innovation.
In the following part, theories and experiences about the management of crea-
tivity in three applied settings, namely education, business, and engineering will be
summarized.

18.3 The Management of Creativity and Innovation

in Education
Echoing the general understanding of good management as “doing things right” and
“doing the right things” (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Drucker, 2009), authors of the
­section on the management of creativity and innovation in education focus their
discussion on the factors that educators and managers should take into consideration
for achieving creativity and innovation in education. Pavón and Pavón (Chapter 5)
conceptualize creative educational management as the implementation of innovative
ways and flexible strategies in the design and evaluation of courses and student per-
formances. They highlight the requirements of the digital era and emphasize that
educational institutions should help students obtain the e-competence and digital
literacy to adapt to the digital era. To achieve this goal, it is imperative that teachers
should get trained to use new technologies and should follow a life-long learning path
to update their knowledge and acquire the necessary skills.
Taking a holistic view, Schmidt (Chapter 6) proposes a systems approach to the
management of creativity and innovation in education, which integrates attributes at
the macro, meso and micro levels. At the macrolevel, national and international poli-
cies should be made to acknowledge creativity and innovation as one goal of educa-
tion. These two elements should also be embedded into the educational system as a
means to achieve innovative educational goals. This proposition is in line with the
sociocultural approach to creativity discussed in Chapter 1 (Tang). At the mesolevel,
infrastructures, curriculums, programs and personnel should be in place for the

b2590_Ch-18.indd 350 3/1/2017 1:17:53 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  351

implementation of creative educational or training programs. As discussed in

Chapter 2 (Gruszka & Dobroczynski), there is evidence that creativity — particularly
creativity in terms of original thinking and problem solving — can be developed
through well-designed creativity training programs (for a review, see., Scott, Leritz, &
Mumford, 2004a, 2004b; Puccio et al., 2006). So the investment in infrastructure
and curriculum development and personnel preparation is necessary and beneficial.
At the microlevel, the importance of a creativity-conducive learning environment and
appropriate assessment methods cannot be overemphasized. Schmidt stresses that
“Creativity and innovation managers in education face challenges that are multi, inter
and intra-related. Success often results from sensitivity, awareness and understanding
at all levels”.
On the basis of the summary and reflection on the theories of creativity and
innovation in education, Schmidt and Pavón (Chapter 7) examine special features of
creativity and innovation within unique cultural contexts of Germany and Spain
within the larger framework of citizenship education. They point out that in both
countries experiential learning, which focuses on knowledge transfer, is an important
feature of education. In Germany, experiential learning is carried out by taking meas-
ures to bridge the gap between the school-based and work-based learning. Two suc-
cessful experiential learning examples from Germany are the berufsbegleitende
Studiengänge (cooperative education programs), which is codeveloped by universi-
ties and industry partners and the Erlebnispädagogik (experiential pedagogy),
which integrates more and more hands-on activities in learning. In Spain, experiential
learning has been brought to the ICT learning environments. As an example, the
“School 2.0 Program” was introduced. Recently results of the evaluation of the pro-
gram began to appear. In one study, the math scores of the pupils who participated in
the “School 2.0 Program” were compared with those who did not participate or only
partially participated in the program (Vilaplana-Prieto, 2014). Unexpected, it was
found that the pupils who participated in the program scored lower in math in com-
parison to those who did not participate. Of course, it is worth noting that evaluation
studies using only one measure (e.g., math score) like the above-mentioned study
pose a risk of oversimplification. It is premature to draw any conclusion about the
effect of such a complex program before more well-designed and controlled evalua-
tion studies have been carried out. From the managerial perspective, the unexpected
results of theoretically promising educational programs call for efforts of bridging the
gaps between theories and practice. Reflecting on what has been written about crea-
tivity in education and what is actually happening in the classroom, Sternberg (2015)
warned of a gap between theory and practice. He identified three obstacles to apply-
ing creativity in teaching: (1) standardized testing which measures creativity little or
not at all; (2) teacher training which is still more traditional than creativity driven;
(3) entrenchment, the inertia of people’s sticking to doing things in a certain way

b2590_Ch-18.indd 351 3/1/2017 1:17:53 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

352  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

without being willing to change unless they have to. Therefore, educational policy-
makers, school leaders and teachers should work together to overcome these barriers
by bringing changes to the academic assessment, teacher training and educational
appraisal.

18.4 The Management of Creativity and Innovation

in Business
Cooper (2001) asserts that 59% of top performing businesses have new product
launch as one of the priorities in their corporate plans, whereas only 3% of the low-
est performing ones do so. Acknowledging the vital importance of new product
development (NPD) for the success of companies, Shiu (Chapter 9) discusses good
practice of creativity and innovation management in business by using a case study
approach. He reviews leading studies about the NPD and summarizes key success
factors of creativity and innovation management for NPD, which include policy
factors, product features and NPD strategies, support, customer readiness and
acceptance, marketing strategy, etc. He highlights the cross-functional collabora-
tion and market orientation as imperative elements for new product success.
Applying the classic five-phase model of Crawford and di Benedetto (2011), he
illustrates how this model can be applied to the management of the innovative
process by using a concrete case of the design and promotion of a type of multifunc-
tion folding sofa bed.
Also taking a case study approach, Shiu, Bonacina, and Binninger (Chapter 10)
analyze the special product and process management experiences in the automobile
industry by using the examples of the production and marketing of the MINI Cooper
and complexity reduction strategies of the BMW Group. The case of the MINI
Cooper Countryman shows the effect of continuous optimization of established prod-
uct with a clear product concept, the integration of key innovative aspects to embody
the unique character of the product, and a clear orientation of environmental sustain-
ability. Managing innovation for environmental sustainability has been recognized by
Hecker and Huber (Chapter 17) as an inevitable trend of future innovation manage-
ment. Particularly in the current automobile market, environmental issues have more
and more influence on customer purchase decisions. The diverse and changing needs
of customers add more complexity to the management of innovation in the automo-
bile industry. Through further examination of the product and process management
at BMW, the authors provide valuable insight into achieving innovation by effectively
reducing complexity through standardization, modularization and the construction of
basic product architectures (platforms). These complexity reduction strategies are set
up by the sense of managing all used resources in preferably simple structures in an
optimized way. The fact that overly complex systems cannot survive in the market in

b2590_Ch-18.indd 352 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  353

the long run (Schmieder & Thomas, 2005) implies that complexity reduction opens
up the opportunity to obtain a competitive edge for the industry. Yet they stress that
the daily operation systems should be reviewed and adapted regularly, as the complex
situations keep changing.
Hecker and Huber (Chapter 17) reflect on selected main topics and challenges
for innovation management in the foreseeable future and identify three fundamental
challenges and two trends for the future of innovation management. The three chal-
lenges are: the management of non-technological innovation, the management of
innovation dynamics and the management of the global systems of innovation. The
two trends are managing innovation for environmental sustainability and managing
digital innovation. They point out that the study and management of innovation was
traditionally confined to the technological development of new products and produc-
tion processes (for a review, see Crossan & Apaydin, 2010) and this bias restricts our
ability to respond to the demands of innovation in different perspectives that the fast
growing society has brought about. They propose three directions for the future
research on non-technological innovation. To add to their list, we would also draw
attention to the business model innovations. In comparison to innovations in prod-
ucts and services, business model innovations are not easily copied. Therefore, they
form the core competitiveness of a company and are decisive for a company’s long-
term success (Bucherer, Eisert, & Gassmann, 2012).
In terms of the management of innovation dynamics, Hecker and Huber
(Chapter 17) acknowledge the value of the tradition of examining the interrelation
of product and process innovation, link this interrelationship to the life cycle of
technologies and markets, and note that the implantation patterns and sequences of
the process and product management should be contextualized for different indus-
tries. Acknowledging the fact of the increasingly connected world, they emphasize the
importance of investigating and managing innovation as a global system. With regard
to the management of innovation for environmental sustainability, they call special
attention to three issues: Firstly, the scope of environmental innovation varies and
future innovators will need to adapt and go beyond “greenwashing” (Delmas &
Burbano, 2011). Secondly, to achieve sustainability, mere focus on technology is not
enough. Rather, technology has to be understood within broader social contexts and
an innovation ecosystem should be set up at the organizational level. Furthermore,
corporate success, environmental sustainability and social responsibility do not always
go hand in hand and the future innovation management should consider potential
trade-offs while pursuing realistic approaches. They predict that the digitalization of
the economy will transform nearly all existing industries; therefore, competence in
integrating the digital dimension into innovation management will be essential.
Future managers should take the responsibility for building both digital and leadership
capabilities to reach the digital mastery. Looking into the future, they also refer to the

b2590_Ch-18.indd 353 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

354  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

rapidly developing “sharing economy” and attach importance to building up trust

among users through elaborate evaluation mechanisms and safety procedures.

18.5 The Management of Creativity and Innovation

in Engineering
Engineers are the persons who use structures, machines, devices, systems, materials,
processes, apparatus, vehicles, roads, or engines to invent, design, build, maintain,
research, improve, develop, operate (Huettl & Rathmayer, Chapter 11). To put it in
another way, engineering is a field that is closely related to the application of tools and
technologies to solve problems. The problem-solving nature of engineering resembles
the defining feature of creativity so much that Cropley (2015, p. 161) asserted that
“creativity and engineering are, in essence, two sides of the same coin”. Indeed, engi-
neers demonstrate higher intrinsic motivation and tough-mindedness than non-
engineers (Williamson, Lounsbury, & Han, 2013) and excellent professional
engineers are not only technically or conventionally better, but they also show more
characteristics typical of creative people such as resourcefulness and readiness to take
risks (Facaoaru, 1985). The higher intrinsic motivation of professional engineers such
as inventors is particularly pronounced (see Colangelo et al., 1993; Henderson, 2004;
Rossman, 1964; Tang, 2010). Hence, the first implication for the management of
creativity and innovation in engineering is that the love of and the interest in engi-
neering should be fostered and maintained at schools and universities. Unfortunately,
in spite of the inherent link of creativity, innovation and engineering discussed above,
creativity and innovation are not promoted adequately in engineering education
(Cropley, 2015). Hence, actions should be taken to foster the understanding and
application of creativity in engineering education. Cropley’s recommendation of
developing an introductory course in engineering creativity covering declarative, pro-
cedural, conditional, and functioning knowledge (Biggs, 1999) of the topic is worth
implementing in engineering education.
At the process level, Huettl and Rathmayer (Chapter 11) emphasize the combina-
tion of convergent and divergent methods. They maintain that the creative process in
engineering, particularly the design process, involves the exploration of many alterna-
tives. They caution that in the phase of generating ideas, the ideas should not be
evaluated. Concrete examples of typical methods and tools of the creative process in
engineering were introduced by Moreno (Chapter 12). He highlights design in the
creative process in engineering and proposes his own model of a Design Process in
Engineering, which is composed of five intertwining steps: defining the problem,
gathering information, generating multiple solutions, analyzing and selecting a solu-
tion, and testing and implementing. A selected number of methods and tools is pre-
sented and discussed for each step such as mind mapping, FMEA, TRIZ, and QFD.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 354 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  355

It is cautioned that the overall design process is iterative, nonlinear and non-­
sequential, partly because the process is constraint ridden. In his words, “Contrary
to artistic activities, innovation in engineering is also a creative action, but with
constraints. Therefore the boundaries of the problem must be well established.
These constraints will be very useful as criteria for idea evaluation”. The constraints
that Moreno talks about can be summarized into three types: the constraints of the
science or technology itself, the constraints of the needs of the end users, and the
time constraints. The constraint is a complex construct and seems to have a pretty
paradoxical relationship to creativity and innovation. On one hand, constraints
such as lack of freedom, autonomy, rigid rules and too many boundaries can
impede creativity (Amabile, 1988; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou &
Shalley, 2008). On the other hand, there is evidence that particularly design con-
straints can often stimulate creativity rather than suppress it (Costello & Keane,
2000; Stokes, 2001; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2014). The management of
creativity and innovation under constraints will be discussed in detail in a separate
part of the chapter.

18.6 The Management of Creativity and Innovation

in Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Settings
With the influence of globalization, schools and work organizations continue to
become interconnected globally. It is, therefore, necessary to put the study of the
management of creativity and innovation on the international arena. As shown
before, extending creativity research to the international context is regarded as an
important direction for future research (Zhou & Shalley, 2008).
Grounded on the conceptual understanding of creativity and innovation of
Chapter 1, Chapter 4 (Tang & Werner) extends the discussion of creativity and
innovation to their relationship to diversity. They point out that creativity appears
in numerous forms across different disciplines. Therefore, it is necessary to differen-
tiate and measure creativity in different domains (also see Kaufman & Baer, 2005,
2006; Werner et al., 2014). Acknowledging the intertwining nature of creativity and
innovation in the innovation process, Tang and Werner support the integrative defi-
nition of creativity and innovation proposed by Anderson and colleagues (2014).
They caution the double-edge effect of diversity on creativity and call for more
research on the relationship between diversity, creativity, and innovation. Their
description of the design and delivery of the Erasmus EMCI Intensive Program
illustrates how the interdisciplinary and intercultural approach can be used to bring
diversity to educational programs and how diversity can be effectively managed to
achieve innovative goals. The experiences they have drawn from their practice include
setting clear goals and effectively managing the goals, using communication as a tool

b2590_Ch-18.indd 355 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

356  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

for the implementation of the program, involving the participants in the management
of the program, and encouraging and enabling bottom-up creativity from the partici-
pants and the management team.
As an extension of Chapter 4, Chapter 14 (Tang & Joos) reports part of the
results of their evaluation study of the EMCI Intensive Program. The merits of the
interdisciplinary and intercultural approach that the program adopted were acknowl-
edged by both the students and the instructors. They were extremely satisfied with
the extensive exchange of knowledge and experiences about the topic from different
cultures and disciplines. They commented such experience as having extended their
perspectives and improved their flexibility in thinking, thus helping them improve
their scientific understanding of creativity on one hand, and foster their creativity
on the other. In spite of this, the fact that the busy schedule and heavy workload
became the target of critique for both years’ summer schools is worth more investiga-
tion. Tang and Joos attribute this dissatisfaction to the mismatch of the expectations
of the students about summer schools and the intensive character of the programs set
by the EU (6–8 learning hours a day). To solve this tension, sponsors of creativity and
innovation training programs should have a flexible instead of rigid understanding of
learning. Learning does not only happen in the traditional face-to-face classroom set-
tings. Rather, individual reflections, group discussions, hands-on explorative activi-
ties, outdoor activities with clear learning objectives, etc., should also be counted as
learning. On the other hand, students should get more input about the “tough” side
of the creative process, which is not always associated with fun and relaxation as they
expect. Rather, the creative process also has its chaotic, unpredictable, and uncertain
phase (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Reinersten, 1999) and the road to achieve creativity
and innovation usually needs hard “deliberate practice” (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Romer, 1993) as discussed by Gruszka and Dobroczynski in Chapter 2.
The end of the creative process, through which new products are produced or
new services are developed, does not imply the end of the management. Instead,
much still needs to be done to bring the innovative products to the market. As a first
step, an innovation needs to be communicated through certain channels to the inter-
nal and external users. This is the topic of Chapter 15 (Binninger), which covers the
topic of diffusion research. Binninger emphasizes that technical finesse of an innova-
tion does not necessarily lead to market success. Instead, the market success is
dependent upon the special role of marketing activities putting the buyer’s acceptance
in the center. To better understand if an innovation will be accepted by the end user,
it is important to not only describe WHAT the product life cycle is but also to search
for behavioral explanations for WHY the dissemination of a certain new product is
successful or not. On one hand, a responsive and reactive strategy can be adopted
to bring the products to the different types of users. Of course, the special needs,
requirements and characteristics of the users of different professions and cultures

b2590_Ch-18.indd 356 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  357

should be taken into consideration. On the other hand, a more proactive path can be
taken to influence the decision-making effect of the users such as the pricing strategy.
Whether it is the skimming or penetration price strategy, this instrument usually
works fast. Also the diffusion management of the disruptive innovation is touched in
this chapter. It is stressed that disruptive innovations bring fundamental changes to
the product life cycle. Hence, it is less effective or even impossible to manage disrup-
tive innovations with the traditional marketing tools.

18.7  Managing the Constraints of Creativity and Innovation

As already discussed in the previous part, the link between creativity and innovation
cannot be taken for granted, as the idea generation (creativity) and implementation
process (innovation) is characterized by tensions (Lewis et al., 2002), paradoxes
(Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004), and dilemmas (Benner & Tushmann, 2003). All this
poses constraints to creativity and innovation. Unless these constraints are identified
and tactfully managed, creativity and innovation can only stay as two nicely theorized
but not actualized concepts. To conclude the whole book, we would like to discuss
about the typical constraints of creativity and innovation and make managerial
recommendations.
To start with, we will discuss the paradoxical relationship between creative idea
generation and idea implementation. It is generally agreed that both idea generation
and idea implementation are essential for innovation. However, many managers are
not aware of the different mechanisms and rules underlying these two processes. The
goal of idea generation is to come up with as many novel ideas as possible. So activi-
ties related to idea generation are usually divergent and exploratory in nature. In
contrast, the goal of idea implementation is to make use of the available resources
to put the creative ideas into practice so that set goals are achieved, problems are
solved, or profits are made. So activities related to idea implementation, which are
primarily concerned with execution, production, and efficiency (March, 1991), are
more convergent. In other words, these activities are exploitative in nature. As a
result, managers should develop different strategies to facilitate idea generation and
idea implementation.
Another typical constraint is the definitional constraint (Sternberg & Kaufman,
2010) already mentioned in the previous part. The constraint here is at least twofold:
Firstly, whether and how much something is novel and useful is context dependent.
People’s conceptions of these two defining criteria are prone to vary across cultures,
times, and situational constraints. Therefore, managers and leaders should set up flex-
ible strategies for the management of creativity and innovation, particularly in the
management of creativity and innovation in an international setting. Secondly, as
Mueller and colleagues (2012) warned, there is an inherent bias against creative ideas,

b2590_Ch-18.indd 357 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

358  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

as very novel ideas are usually at the first glance crazy and impractical. In many cases,
creative ideas are also costly and entail changes to the existing system. All this makes
creative ideas, which are more original than useful, less likely to be adopted than
creative ideas which are more useful than original. Hence managers and leaders
should be aware of this bias and should be courageous enough to take certain risks to
pursue some very creative ideas after strategic balance of the costs and potential
returns of the innovation in the long run.
Whoever is involved in the management of creativity and innovation will be
confronted with the dilemma of flexibility and control. Paradoxically, though freedom,
autonomy, weak rules, and few boundaries are often associated with creativity and
innovation, constraints such as limited resources and design constraints can stimulate
creativity rather than suppress it (see for a review, Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015). For
example, there is evidence that when people are given free rein to solve a problem,
they tend to automatically pursue the “path of least resistance” and adopt existing
rather than creative methods (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1995; Ward, 1994) and that
brainstorming about a narrow topic elicits more original ideas than about a broad
topic (Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2014). Another stream of studies shows that the
control measures are needed for directing the innovation process and reduce uncer-
tainty (Salomo, Weise, & Gemünden, 2007; Tatikonda & Montoya-Weiss, 2001;
Verworn, 2009), particularly at the “fuzzy”, chaotic, and unpredictable phase of the
innovative process (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Reinertsen, 1999). Therefore, as
Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000) assert, for a successful innovation process, a balance
is needed between firmness (i.e., rules and regulations) and flexibility (i.e., autonomy
and adequate resources).
In order to manage the constraints effectively, it is worth paying special attention
to the different types of constraints of creativity and innovation. Roskes (2014) dif-
ferentiated limiting constraints from channelling constraints: limiting constraints such
as time pressure and multitasking consume or occupy cognitive resources; chan-
neling constrains such as procedures, instructions, and task structures help people to
efficiently focus their resources. By appearance, limiting constraints must restrict crea-
tivity and innovation, while channeling constraints can facilitate creativity and innova-
tion. In practice, the relationship between these constraints and creativity/innovation
is much more complicated. For example, it has been found that while high levels of
limiting constraints tend to have only negative effects on creative performance, mod-
erate levels of limiting constraints can stimulate creative performance (Baer &
Oldham, 2006; Byron, Khanzanchi, & Nazarian, 2010). The effects of these con-
straints can also be moderated or mediated by other factors. Relating the constraints
to Elliot’s (1999, 2008) approach vs. avoidance motivation, Roskes (2014) theorized
that for avoidance-motivated people, the limiting constraints can undermine whereas
the channeling constraints facilitate their creativity because of their strong need for

b2590_Ch-18.indd 358 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  359

structure. In contrast, for approach-motivated people, the limiting constraints can

make them feel challenged, therefore motivated to create, whereas the channeling
constraints can stifle their creative zest. He further cautioned that approach and
avoidance motivation is not necessarily a trait-like stable construct. Rather it is liable
to the influence of the environment. When the environment is safe and prosperous,
people are likely to have an approach motivation, whereas threatening situations such
as financial crisis can trigger fear and insecurity among people, thus forcing them to
avoid failure. Roskes’s theory has tremendous practical implications for efficient man-
agement of creativity and innovation both at schools and in organizations. Studies are
invited to test the hypothesized interaction of constraints and motivation on the crea-
tivity level of individuals and teams.
One seemingly restricting but actually important tool for the management of
creativity and innovation is seldom discussed in creativity and innovation studies. It
is the intellectual property right (IPR). Awareness of this issue saves companies
unnecessary costs of ignorance and brings about sustainable development advantages.
Practical in nature, Kinkeldey (Chapter 16), with his over 20 years’ experience as pat-
ent and trademark attorney, demonstrates not only the imperativeness but also the
power of constraints in the management of creativity and innovation. With vivid and
up-to-date examples, he explains general terms about WHAT kind of intellectual
property rights (IPRs) are available for WHICH kind of creation and WHAT the most
important prerequisites for obtaining protection are. Focusing on patent law, trade-
mark law, design law and copyright law, Kinkeldey explains the protection scope of
each law, describes the procedures of how to apply for protection, and points out
typical pitfalls people should avoid in searching for legal protection. In whichever
form, the IPR issues are about setting boundaries to people’s actions and regulate their
behavior. However, as Kinkeldey argues, the IPRs allow for control over creativity and
innovation and this control is necessary and important, as it is often the only way to
create something big, tangible, and long lasting (Landers, 2010). It is warned, as the
IPR law systems are quite different from country to country, professional consulting
and advice should be sought early in the process.
In summarizing the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Sternberg and
Kaufman (2010) identified a variety of definitional, internal (e.g., ability, motiva-
tion, personality, etc.) and external (e.g., context, resource, task, time, etc.) con-
straints of creativity. Understanding how internal and external constraints influence
creative performance will help in developing ways to strategically use constraints to
facilitate creativity and promote innovation. Without exaggeration, the most essen-
tial of the management of creativity and innovation is the flexible coping with the
paradoxical aspects of constraints by tactfully switching between different strategies
at different stages, for different persons or groups, in different organizations and
cultures.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 359 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

360  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

18.8 Conclusion
Managing people to promote creativity and innovation is essential if we strive to real-
ize the full creative potential of individuals and organizations. A recent meta-analysis
of 52 empirical samples involving 10,538 observations confirmed a strong positive
association between creativity and innovation (Sarooghi, Libaers, & Burkemper,
2015). However, this link does not guarantee a successful translation of creativity at
innovation. To achieve innovation at the institutional and cultural levels, creativity
should be fostered at the individual and team levels in the first place; a variety of
organizational, environmental, and cultural factors should be considered and man-
aged tactfully in the managerial practice; and the different requirements, challenges,
and evaluation conditions of the different disciplines and cultures should be
addressed.
Theories and practice from the field of education have much to say about the
fostering of creativity at the individual level. At the organizational level, group creativ-
ity is of more relevance as teams are increasingly responsible for work performance in
organizations (Sundstrom, 1999). However, group creativity is not the simple sum of
individual intelligence and creativity; therefore, management measures should be
adapted taking into consideration a series of relational and organizational factors
(Bissola & Imperatori, 2011). The inherent association of engineering and creativity
(Cropley, 2015) provides rich insights into the education and the business fields par-
ticularly when it comes to the topics about product design and problem solving.
One of the most challenging aspects of the management of creativity and innova-
tion may lie in the management of the tension between the need for creativity and
the need for control (Kock & Gemuenden, 2013) as well as the balance of the short-
term wins of incremental innovation and uncertain long-term gains of radical innova-
tion (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015). Though challenging, there is evidence that
high-performing organizations can manage the coexistence of the flexible creative
system and the more structured controlling system (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Im,
Montoya-Weiss, & Workman, 2012; Sheremata, 2000). This book provides further
insights into the management of creativity and innovation across disciplines and cul-
tures. With this book, we hope to stimulate more interest in and spark more research
on this topic. With the evidence presented in this book, we are confident to say that
though complex and demanding, the management of creativity and innovation is
possible and imperative. Either it is at schools and universities where students’ creative
potential should be unfolded, or in organizations where creative ideas should be con-
verted into innovative products/services, or in engineering labs where problems
should be solved in new ways, teachers, managers and entrepreneurs need to strike a
fine balance between flexibility and control and should adapt the multilevel approach
to manage creativity and innovation effectively.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 360 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  361

References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time
pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. NY: Harper & Row.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press.
Bissola, R., & Imperatori, B. (2011). Organizing individual and collective creativity: Flying in
the face of creativity clichés. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(2), 77–89.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model innova-
tion: lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 21(2), 183–198.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and
creativity: A Meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 201–212.
Caniëls, M. C., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2015). Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation
under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 184–196.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., Kerr, B., Huesman, R., & Johnson, D. (1993). Mechanical
inventiveness: A three phase study. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and
development of high ability (pp. 160–174). Chichester: Wiley.
Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from idea to launch, (3rd
edn.). New York: Perseus Publishing.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual
combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299–349.
Crawford, M., & di Benedetto, A (2011). New Products Management (10th Edn.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 161.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6),
1154–1191.
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing, California
Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.
Drucker, P. F. (2009). The Effective Executive: The definitive guide to getting the right things
done. NY: Harper Collins.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 361 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

362  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

Elliot, A. J. (2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychology, 34, 169–89.
Epstein, R., Kaminaka, K., Phan, V., & Uda, R. (2013). How is creativity best managed?
Some empirical and theoretical guidelines. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(4),
359–374.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik: Operationalisierung von
Problemlösefähigkeiten und kognitiven Stilen [Creativity in science and technology:
Operationalization from problem solving ability and cognitive styles]. Bern, Germany:
Huber.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1995). The Creative Cognition Approach. Boston:
MIT Press.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role
of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 472, 209–226.
Henderson, S. J. (2004). Inventors: The ordinary genius next door. In R. J. Sternberg,
E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Ed.) Creativity: From Potential to Realization
(pp. 103–125). Washington: APA.
Im, S., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Workman, J. P. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of
creativity in product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 301,
170–185.
Kaufman, A. B., Kornilov, S. A., Bristol, A. S., Tan, M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). The
Neurobiological Foundation of Creative Cognition. J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg
(Red.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 216–232). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of creativity. In
J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321–328).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligence testing with Torrance. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 99–102.
Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2002). Focusing the fuzzy front–end in new product development.
R & D Management, 324, 269–279.
Kock, A., Schwenk, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2013). Balancing formalization and climate
in the front end of innovation. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1,
p. 13764). Academy of Management.
Landers, A. L. (2010). Articles ordinary creativity in patent law: The artist within the scientist.
Missouri Law Review, 75(1), 1–77.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 95–112.
Lewis, M., Welsh, M., Dehler, G., & Green, S. (2002). Product development tensions: exploring
contrasting styles of product management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 362 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

Essentials of the Management of Creativity and Innovation in Education  363

Lykken, D. T. (1982). Research with twins: The concept of emergenesis. Psychophysiology,

19(4), 361–372.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2, 71–87.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that
promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Gocalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people
desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13–17.
Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and
exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. Journal
of Management, 39(6), 1606–1636.
Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C., & Masucci, C. (2006). A review of the effectiveness
of CPS Training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity and Innovation Management,
15(1), 19–33.
Reinertsen, D. G. (1999). Taking the fuzziness out of the fuzzy front end. Research Technology
Management, 426, 25–31.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2014). Effects of problem scope and creativity
instructions on idea generation and selection. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 185–191.
Roskes, M. (2015). Constraints that help or hinder creative performance: a motivational
approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 197–206.
Rossman, J. (1964). Industrial creativity: The Psychology of the Inventor. New Hyde Park, NY:
University Books.
Salomo, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innova-
tion performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating
effect of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 244,
285–302.
Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship between
creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental
factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714–731.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (2nd edn.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmieder, M., & Thomas, S. (2005). Plattformstrategien und Modularisierung in der
Automobilentwicklung [Platform strategies and modularisation within the automotive
development]. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training:
A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches
and their effectiveness. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(3), 149–179.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30,
933–958.

b2590_Ch-18.indd 363 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM

 b2590  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice

364  Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation

Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development
under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 252, 389–408.
Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 115–117.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constraints on creativity: Obvious and not so
obvious. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 467–482). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, P. D. (2001). Variability, constraints, and creativity: Shedding light on Claude Monet.
American Psychologist, 56, 355–359.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for foster-
ing high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tang, M. (2010). China’s Young Inventors: A Systematic View of the Individual and Environmental
Factors. Doctoral dissertation retrievable from PSYNDEX (Accession Order No. 0236803)
http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14898/1/Tang_Min.pdf.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Integrating Operations and Marketing
Perspectives of Product Innovation: The Influence of Organizational Process Factors and
Capabilities on Development Performance. Management Science, 471, 151–172.
Tatikonda, M., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development
projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations
Management, 18, 401–425.
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: Ametamorphosis model
of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Verworn, B. (2009). A structural equation model of the impact of the “fuzzy front end” on
the success of new product development. Research Policy, 3810, 1571–1581.
Vilaplana-Prieto, C. (2014). Evaluation of achievement in mathematics for the program
School 2.0 in Spain using PISA 2012. INTED2014 Proceedings (pp. 6440–6448). 8th
International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar
­generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.
Werner, C., Tang, M., Kruse, J., Kaufman, J., & Spörrle, M. (2014). The Chinese version of
the revised Creativity Domain Questionnaire (CDQ-R): First evidence for its factorial
validity and systematic association with the Big Five. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4),
254–275.
Williamson, J. M., Lounsbury, J. W., Han, L. D. (2013). Key personality traits of engineers
for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 30, 157–168.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

b2590_Ch-18.indd
View publication stats 364 3/1/2017 1:17:54 PM