Networks for generating and for validating ideas: The social side of creativity
Sandra Ohly
Assistant Professor, Institute of Psychology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany
Robert Kase
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Miha Škerlavaj
Assistant Professor, Department for Management and Organization, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
PP: 41 - 52
Abstract
In recent years, research has recognized that creativity is a social process. By communicating with others, individuals get access to novel perspectives and unique knowledge, and they can get political support for their ideas by ensuring that they meet others' standards. Based on the different function of idea-related communication, we expected the structure of idea-generation networks to differ from that of idea-validation networks. Specifically, we expected different effects of leadership status and tenure. Our results indicated some differences in the structure of the two networks. This leads to the recommendation that future research on idea-related communication and creativity needs to distinguish the different phases of the creative process.
Keywords
Idea generation, implementation, social network, social support, communication, reciprocity
Article Text
The social side of creativity has been recognized in the past few years as important. Support from others contributes to a person's creativity (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), and facilitates the implementation of creative ideas (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, & Waterson, 2000). This support stems from a network of social relationships of at work. Previous studies in this area have focused on the consequences of network structure for creativity and innovation. For example, Perry-Smith (Perry-Smith, 2006) showed that research scientists with many weak ties were rated as more creative, and Obstfeld (Obstfeld, 2005) showed that engineers with dense social networks are more engaged in developing new products or processes. These studies examined the relationship of network structure and creativity, but research has generally neglected the antecedents of network structure (for a review see Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), and specifically the antecedents of the network structure of communicating about ideas. In this paper, we will discuss a number of antecedents of network structure for communicating about ideas. We will examine leadership status, tenure, and supervisor-subordinate relationship because they are highly visible characteristics in organizations (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002).
Communication about ideas can serve different functions for creativity (Binnewies, Ohly, & Sonnentag, 2007; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). In communicating about ideas, knowledge is shared, new insights are stimulated, and the idea can be evaluated according to standards valid in the social context. These are cognitive processes stimulated by communication. In addition, when communicating about an idea, a person has a chance of receiving emotional support (Madjar, 2008) thereby building confidence, and publicly commits to working on a given problem. These are social processes stimulated through communication. Although communication in general is important for creativity, there is a controversy on the configuration of the communication network that might promote an individual's creativity best: a network full of structural holes (many disconnected individuals) or a very dense network. In other words, it is unclear if an individual benefits most from a network position that either gives the opportunity for unique perspective or from many close-knit contacts. The two perspectives are discussed in more detail below.
According to the structural holes perspective, an actor is more likely to have good ideas if he or she has a position near the holes in the network because he or she is exposed to diverse experiences and multiple thought worlds (Burt, 2004). Individuals "whose networks span structural holes have access to diverse, often contradictory, information and interpretations, which gives them a competitive advantage in seeing good ideas" (p. 356)
On the contrary, a dense network (without structural holes) might be better for creativity and innovation because actors in these networks tend to trust each other more and to share their knowledge more openly (cf. Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Research supporting either perspective is limited and has mixed findings (see Obstfeld, 2005, for a review). One reason for the inconsistent results might be the failure to distinguish between the cognitive processes and the social processes stimulated when communicating about ideas. Both processes might be important in different stages of the creative process.
In our paper, we will distinguish between the two processes, and discuss how they operate during different phases of the creative process. Furthermore, we examine the antecedents of network structure, thereby filling the research gap recognized by Brass and colleagues (2004). By distinguishing between the two networks based on different stages of creative process and identifying unique predictors of the network structure, more insights into the social side of creativity can be gained.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). 'A model of creativity and innovation in organizations'. In: B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Axtell, C. M., D. J. Holman, K. L. Unsworth, T. D. Wall and P. E. Waterson (2000). 'Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.
Baer, M. (2007, August). 'The implementation of radical ideas in organizations'. Academy of Management Conference. Philadelphia.
Bauer, T. N., T. Bodern, B. Erdogan, D. M. Truxillo and J. S. Tucker (2007). 'Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods', Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Binnewies, C., S. Ohly and S. Sonnentag (2007). 'Taking personal initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity?' European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 16, 432-455.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brass, D. J. (1984). 'Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-539.
Brass, D. J., J. Galaskiewicz, H. R. Greve and W. Tsai (2004). 'Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective', Acacemy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817.
Burt, R. S. (2004). 'Structural holes and good ideas', American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349-399.
Contractor, N. S., S. Wasserman and K. Faust (2006). 'Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example', Acacemy of Management Review, 31, 681-703.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and B. N. Tabrizi (1995). 'Accelarating adaptive processes: Product development in the global computer industry', Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110.
Frese, M., E. Teng and C. J. D. Wijnen (1999). 'Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139-1155.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.
Klein, K. J., Lim, B.-C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acacemy of Management Journal, 47, 952-963.
Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81, 83-100.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees´ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757-767.
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics, and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257-279.
Pahor, M., Škerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V. (2008). Evidence for the network perspective on organizational learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(12): 1985-1994.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acacemy of Management Journal, 49, 85-101.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 173-191.
Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 853-872.
Rost, K., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H.-G. (2007). Promotors or champions? Pros and cons of role specilisation for economic process. Schmalenbach Business Review, 50, 340-363.
Škerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V., Mrvar, A., Pahor, M. (2008). Intra-organizational learning networks within knowledge-intensive learning environments. Interactive learning environment.
Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2007). Manual for SIENA version 3. Retrieved 06/10, 2008
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & West, P. (2006). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the coevoluion of adolescents' friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology, 2, 48-56.
West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245-276). Oxford: University press.
West, M. A., & Altink, W. M. M. (1996). Innovation at work: Individual, group, organizational and socio-historical perspective. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 3-11.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
eContent Home
