Organizational creativity diluted: a critical appraisal of discursive practices in academic research

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the discursive practices employed in academic research on organizational creativity through a critical lens. Design/methodology/approach – The literature on organizational creativity is reviewed from a discourse-theoretical perspective and three groupings of dominant discursive practices are identified. The theoretical and practical implications of the practices are discussed, and other potential aspects of creativity that appear to have been neglected or suppressed in the discourse are further examined. Findings – The dominant discursive practices in the organizational creativity research contribute to the building of a simplified and one-sided picture of organizational creativity; a stripped-down and diluted version that is more easily achievable and manageable, and leads to positive outcomes. Failure to recognize its inherent complexities reduces the value of creativity as an organizational asset. Originality/value – The findings contribute to the organizational creativity research in recognizing a range of dominant practices that appear to promote the dilution of the concept. Although the diluted and stripped-down version of organizational creativity suits the managerial agenda and complies with organizational discourse, it fails as an organizational asset, which should be about embracing the unconventional and risky, and taking advantage of change.

A comprehensive framework of information system design to provide organizational creativity support

“…Therefore, creativity could be seen as an important organizational capability [1], a possible source of organizational effectiveness and a source of competitive advantage. It is a collaborative psychological process that takes place in an organization and is affected by contextual and organizational factors [27]. According to Brennan and Dooley [28], creativity within an organizational context can be regarded as the sum of the following functions: the creative person, creative task, and the organizational context (culture).…”

Creativity or Cooptation? Thinking Beyond Instrumentalism When Teaching Design Thinking

“…Interest in DT can be contextualized within a broader preoccupation, in the field of management, with the topics of creativity and innovation. In the past two decades, creativity and innovation have come to be linked with productivity, competitive advantage, increased profit, success, and even organizational survival (Blomberg, 2014; Puccio & Cabra, 2010; Zhou & Shalley, 2009). Creativity, which within the management literature, is commonly described as involving the production of ideas that are “novel and useful” (Amabile, 1996, p. 1), has come to be valued as a key ingredient for innovation, which involves those ideas’ implementation (Amabile, 1991).…”

“…However, as the literature on creativity and innovation has grown, so too has a parallel but smaller body of writing, which critiques it (Blomberg, 2014; De Cock, Rehn, & Berry, 2013; Driver, 2008; Fouweather & Bosma, 2015; Gahan, Minahan, & Glow, 2017; Glăveanu, 2018; Lancione & Clegg, 2015; Osborne, 2003; Prichard, 2002; M. A. Taylor & Callahan, 2005).…”

“…A. Taylor & Callahan, 2005). According to critics, the dominant literature can be faulted for its adoption of an overly narrow definition of creativity, which frames it as a resource to be exploited for organizationally useful purposes, without acknowledging the many noninstrumentalist ways it has been defined throughout history and across disciplines (Blomberg, 2014; Gahan et al, 2017; Prichard, 2002; M. A. Taylor & Callahan, 2005).…”

“…A. Taylor & Callahan, 2005). As these thinkers have noted, outside of the management discourse, creativity is commonly associated not with the productive achievement of organizational ends, but with what is wild, romantic, rebellious, cathartic, impulsive, useless and bizarre (Blomberg, 2014; Fouweather & Bosma, 2015; M. A. Taylor & Callahan, 2005).…”