Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


2015 | 4/2015 (56) | 131-143

Article title

Twórczość organizacyjna i efektywność organizacji – w kierunku ujęcia wielopoziomowego

Content

Title variants

EN
Organizational Creativity and Firm Performance: Towards a Multilevel Understanding

Languages of publication

PL

Abstracts

PL
Badacze dążą obecnie do lepszego konceptualnego zrozumienia twórczości organizacyjnej. W niniejszym opracowaniu1 staram się rozpatrzeć założenia dotyczące twórczości organizacyjnej jako konstruktu wielowymiarowego. Współczesne badania nad specyficzną zdolnością dynamiczną współczesnych organizacji – twórczością organizacyjną – pozwalają na integrację pod kątem ujęcia wielopoziomowego. Aby osiągnąć ten cel, dokonano syntezy badań nad twórczością w organizacjach. Na tej podstawie przedstawiono powiązania pomiędzy twórczą nowością oraz twórczą użytecznością, a także pomiędzy twórczością indywidualną, zespołową i na poziomie całej organizacji w kontekście efektywności organizacji. Scharakteryzowano również procesy oddolne i procesy odgórne kształtujące kluczowe aspekty twórczości odnoszące się do efektywności. Wszystko razem rozszerza i w pewnym sensie kwestionuje dotychczasowy dorobek koncepcji twórczości organizacyjnej, a także otwiera kierunki nowych badań w tym obszarze
EN
Scholars have got to understand organizational creativity for its rich conceptual depth. In this paper I explore how the specific dynamic capability in today’s organizations – organizational creativity – provides the cause to reconsider assumptions surrounding this multidimensional concept from a multilevel point of view. To this end, I synthesize research on creativity in organizations and theorize connections between creative novelty-creative usefulness, and organization effectiveness across individual, team, and organization level, rooting my arguments in the claim that bottom-up and top-down processes shape key creativity-related aspects of effectiveness. Collectively, my arguments expand and, in some respects, challenge the theory on organizational creativity and open a new windows into the study of creativity in organizations.

Year

Issue

Pages

131-143

Physical description

Contributors

  • Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach

References

  • Adler, P.S. i Chen, C.X. (2011). Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 63–85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.002.
  • Baron, R.A. i Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 49–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002.
  • Bettis, R.A. i Prahalad, C.K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 5–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160104.
  • Bledow, R., Rosing K. i Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 432–450, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0894.
  • Bratnicka, K. (2013). Understanding the organizational creativity through the lens of a dynamic capability framework. W: Managing to Make a Difference (s. 1–14). Liverpool: British Academy of Management.
  • Bratnicka, K. (2014). Twórczość organizacyjna: zdefiniowanie i operacjonalizacja nowego konstruktu. W: J. Lichtarski, S. Nowosielski, G. Osbert-Pociecha i E. Tabaszewska-Zajbert (red.), Nowe kierunki w zarządzaniu przedsiębiorstwem – wiodące orientacje (s. 27–36). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, http://dx.doi.org/10.15611/pn.2014.340.02.
  • Chakrabarty, S. i Woodman, R.W. (2009). Relationship creativity in collectives at multiple levels. W: T. Ricards, M.A. Runco i S. Moger (red.), The Routledge Companion to Creativity (s. 189–205). London, New York: Routledge, http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203888841.ch16.
  • Chen, G., Bliese, P.D. i Mathieu, J.E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theory of homology. Organizational Research Methods, (8), 375–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280056.
  • De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A. i Bass, M. (2011). Creativity in individuals and groups: Basic principles with practical implications. W: D. De Cremer, L. van Dick, i J.K. Murningham (red.), Social Psychology and Organizations (s. 297–324). New York, London: Routledge.
  • Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. i Kazanjian, R.K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1893937.
  • Feldman, M.S. i Worline, M. (2012). Resources, resourcing, and ampliative cycles in organizations. W: K. Cameron i G. Spreitzer (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (s. 629–641). New York: Oxford University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0047.
  • Florida, R. i Goodnight, J. (2005). Managing for creativity. Harvard Business Review, 83, 124–131.
  • George, J.M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, (3), 439–477, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/078559814.
  • Gilson, L.L. (2007). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at the individual, group, and organizational levels. W: C. Shalley i J. Zhou (red.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (s. 303–322). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Glynn, M.A. i Wrobel, K. (2006). My family, my firm: How familial relationships function as endogenous organizational resources. W: J. Dutton i B. Ragins (red.), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Agenda (s. 307–324). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gong, Y., Kim, T.Y., Lee, D.R. i Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0177.
  • Gong, Y.P., Huang, J.C., i Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
  • Hargadon, A.B. i Bechky, B.A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200.
  • Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D. i Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035.
  • Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E. i Mathieu, J.E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166219.
  • House, R., Rousseau, D.M. i Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. W: L.L. Cummings i B.M. Staw (red.), Research in Organizational Behavior (s. 71–114). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  • James, K. i Drown, D. (2012). Organizations and creativity: Trends in research, status of education and practice, agenda for future research. W: M.D. Mumford (red.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (s. 17–38). London, Waltham, San Diego: Academic Press/Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-374714-3.00002-1.
  • Kor Y. i Mesko A. (2013). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 233–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2000.
  • Lim, H.S. i Gilson, L.L. (2012). Why Be Creative: A Multilevel Examination of Individual and Groups Creativity on Performance. Referat wygłoszony na: Academy of Management. Boston.
  • Mumford, M.D. i Hunter, S.T. (2005). The creativity paradox: Sources, resolutions, and directions. W: F. Dansereau i F.J. Yammarino (red.), Multi-level Issues in Strategy and Methods (s. 105–114). Amsterdam, New York, London: Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04004-X.
  • Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 89–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785503.
  • Pirola-Merlo, A. i Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity: Aggregating between people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.240.
  • Plucker, J.A., Beghetto, R.A. i Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 38, 83–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1.
  • Rafferty, A.E., Jimmieson, N.L. i Armenakis, A.A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39, 110–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417. Sacramento, C.A., Dawson J. i West, M.A. (2008). Team creativity: More than the sum of its parts? W: M.D. Mumford, S.T. Hunter i K.E. Bedell-Avers (red.), Multi-level Issues in Creativity and Innovation. Research in Multilevel Issues Series (s. 269–288).
  • Bingley, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(07)00010-0.
  • Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. i 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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007.
  • Shinkle, G.A. (2012). Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: Building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management, 38, 375–414, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419856.
  • Sirén, C.A., Kohtamäki, M. i Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation gap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, (6), 18–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sej.1126.
  • Sirmon, D., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. i Gilbert, B.A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37, 1390–1412, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695.
  • Sminia, H. (2011). Creative Dynamic Capability and Institutional Entrepreneurship: A Process Approach. Referat wygłoszony na: Academy of Management. San Antonio.
  • Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 814–848, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0048.
  • Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069349.
  • Wang, A.C. i Cheng, B-S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity. The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 106–121, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/job.634.
  • Wang, C.L. i Rafiq, M. (2012). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese hightech firms. British Journal of Management, 25, 58–73, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x.
  • Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. i Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517.

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

ISSN
1644-9584

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.desklight-8cc4df0f-cdfa-4565-aa90-cf3addd63ae0
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.