Design of Corporate Creativity

Abstract

Globalization has created immense competitive pressures on corporates. In order to survive and prosper, organizations in the Third World need to redesign themselves for corporate creativity, i.e., for high rates of sustained and successful technological as well as non-technological innovations. This paper provides several examples of how deregulation of the West's airlines industry in the decade of the 1980s stimulated its corporate creativity. It then reviews the literature on the organizational design for corporate creativity to derive a model of the corporate's organizational design requirements for copious and successful innovations. The model proposes that, for superior corporate creativity in a regime of intensifying environmental pressures, the organization needs to choose the following: i) innovation-friendly business strategies ; ii) organizational structure; iii) top management style; iv) middle management practices; and v) effective modes of managing innovations. These choices would lead to innovational success, which, in turn, would confer competitive excellence on the organization.This paper reports a test of the model through questionnaire-based data on 65 Indian corporates collected from late 1999 to early 2003. Data were gathered from an average of five top and senior level executives from each corporate on 6-point scales, and each scale was anchored by a statement at each extreme. All the responses from each organization were averaged for each rated scale and converted into a percentage score for the organization. The scales were grouped for aggregation into: i) environmental pressure; ii) innovations-supportive strategic management; iii) innovations-supportive top management style; iv) innovations-supportive organizational structure ; v) innovationssupportive managerial practices and culture; vi) effective management of innovations; vii) corporate innovational success; and viii) corporate competitive excellence.The data were secured for the situation 'now' and three years earlier and this enabled the computing of changes in each study variable. The data indicated that change in effective mangement of innovations was the strongest predictor of change in innovational success which, in turn, was the greatest predictor of change in competitive corporate excellence. In order to identify the major strategic choices in the face of high versus low environmental pressure, cluster analysis was performed on the data from the 30 highest scoring corporates on environmental pressure and the 30 lowest scoring corporates on environmental pressure. It revealed that, regardless of environmental pressure, organizations that chose to adopt an organizational design compatible with high corporate creativity outscored those organizations that did not choose such a design in terms of both innovational success and competitive excellence.The data also indicated that organizational design for corporate creativity may yield far better performance when change in environmental pressure is modest than when it is large. The r...

Green Banking Strategies: Sustainability through Corporate Entrepreneurship

“…One frequently mentioned factor is management commitment and support (Ehrenfeld and Lenox, 1997;Ritzén, 2000;Pujari et al, 2004;Boks, 2006). In order to survive and compete successfully, the organization needs innovation-friendly business strategy, organizational structure, top management style, middle management practices and effective modes of managing innovation for innovational success and competitive excellence (Khandwalla and Mehta, 2004 The second dimension is management support, which indicates the willingness of managers to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial activity in the firm. Studies showing p o s i t i v e correlation b e t w e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l performance and financial performance.…”

Strengthening Innovation Capacity through Different Types of Innovation Cultures

“…• KEYS • Six Factors Promoting Corporate Creativity (Robinson & Stern, 1997) • Culture and Climate for Innovation (Ahmed, 1998) • Design of Corporate Creativity (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004) • Model of Engagement in Creative Action (Unsworth & Clegg, 2010) • Key Issues Around Creating a Culture for Design, Creativity, and Innovation (von Stamm, 2005) • Working Climate and Creativity (Ekvall & TangebergAndersson, 1986) • The Creativity Audit (Rickards & Bessant, 1980) • Measuring the Perceived Support for Innovation in Organizations (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978) • Organizational Creativity and Innovation (van Gundy, 1987) • Needed Research in Creativity for Business and Industry Applications (Basadur, 1987) • Exploratory Study for Creative Climate (Cabra et al, 2005) • …”

“…Category systems that outline the supporting framework conditions for creativity and innovation have been developed over recent years (e.g., Amabile et al, 1996;Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004;Robinson & Stern, 1997). These works assume that a company possesses an innovation culture to either a greater or lesser degree and that either a higher or lower innovative capacity can be derived from it (Dobni, 2008;Martins & Terblanche, 2003).…”

International acquisitions and emerging market firms' performance—a structural contingency perspective

“…Thus, organizations with high formalization may have difficulty succeeding with JVs since employees are more accustomed to working in a predicable environment. Furthermore, too much codification of knowledge can be vexing for employees and similarly for JV partners (Khandwalla & Mehta, ). Overall, these challenges associated with formalization could make knowledge absorption and its application difficult if knowledge is acquired through JVs, leading to failure of JVs and adversely impacting firms' performance.…”