Search results

The purpose of the article was to identify the core dimensions of strategic thinking and create a measure that provides a comprehensive operationalization of the construct.

The construct validity of the measure was assessed in two studies using four samples with a total of 985 participants. The measure was created using a multi-step process that included item development and content validation, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, criterion validity and test-retest validity.

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported the existence of the three dimensions of strategic thinking (visionary, synthetic and creative thinking) as conceptually proposed. The measure was reduced to nine items. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the three dimensions and revealed acceptable factor loadings and model fit. Convergent, discriminant and criterion validity were established, and the measure demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability.

An individual's ability to think strategically is vital for making strategic decisions and relevant to upper echelon theory and strategic management. The definition and core dimensions of strategic thinking are unclear in the literature, creating confusion. This study added to the literature by defining the core dimensions of strategic thinking and developing the strategic thinking assessment (STA) to measure the construct.

While audiences play a key role in the implementation and ultimate success of novel ideas, how audiences are reflected in negotiations about quality within the creative process remains undertheorized. We examine this question through a comparative ethnography of two settings where digital technology use magnifies the countless micro-decisions involved in producing a creative output and considerations of audience evaluation throughout the creative process – Nashville music production and systems biology cancer research. We find that actors encounter a fundamental tension between two competing standards of quality: the technically perfect, processed and ideal versus the empirically grounded, unprocessed and real. We show how actors navigate this tension vis-á-vis three different audiences – internal peers, extended community, and external reviewers – and how this manifests differently across audiences and the arts and sciences, depending on the audience’s expertise. Our study illuminates the tension between the “ideal versus real” in creative processes that is brought to the fore when creating with digital technology, extends extant research on audiences and organizing for creativity, and offers unique insights from our comparative ethnography across the arts and sciences.

Examines the interaction between Western leader ship and authority practices and those of a non Western culture (Nigeria) in their managerial and or ganisational context. Data concerning the experience of an organisational change in a non‐Western cultural context fail to confirm some of the ideas advanced in the convergence and divergence theses. An alternative framework for conceptualising the process of interaction and outcome of organisational development in situations of cross‐cultural transfer and application of management practices is proposed.

This volume brings together empirical and conceptual papers that investigate the challenges of organizing creativity in the innovation journey in and across different empirical contexts. Seen as the basis for innovating new products, processes or services, organizing creativity is studied as intentional efforts that occur in teams, organizations, and fields. What creativity is, how it is defined, negotiated and recognized is hereby co-constructed with different audiences and in different economic and societal spheres. The papers in this volume extend our understanding of these contextualized social dynamics of organizing creativity in four directions. The first direction sheds light on the temporal dynamics of organizing creativity in artistic fields. The second direction compares creative processes in arts and science, thereby examining tensions and uncertainties in the creative process unfolding in two distinctive contexts of creativity. The third direction examines identity struggles of creative agents in organizations with clashing roles, professional norms, and ambiguities in creativity assessment. The fourth and final direction unravels the communicative journey of ideas from pitching to feedback, revealing how ideas are challenged, enriched, and acquire meaning in communicative interaction. Overall, the papers in this volume contribute to a situated view of creative processes in innovation which goes beyond questions of idea generation to account for dynamics of idea development, judgment, and dissemination which involve identity struggles, evaluation, and communication – processes which are at the heart of organizing for innovation.

An intellectual symbiosis exists between social economics and institutional economics because the strengths and weaknesses of these two leading schools of heterodox economic thought are complementary. Axiology and goals are the strength of social economics and the weakness of institutional economics. Epistemology and methodology are the strength of institutional economics and the weakness of social economics. The rationalistic and metaphysical axiology of the social economists can be effectively merged with the empirical and pragmatic epistemology of the institutional economists. The resulting symbiotic synthesis will certainly provide the basis for a creative integration of social and institutional economics into a new and improved school of heterodox economic thought.

The paper sets out to integrate what is known about the concept of tacit knowledge and proposes a pattern recognition and synthesis (PRS) framework as an explanation of how tacit knowledge is created.

In this conceptual piece it is argued that knowledge is monistic and that the dichotic distinction between tacit and explicit is an artifact of analytic treatment. The PRS framework models the development of personal knowledge via the process of tacit knowing within the individual, who is within an organizational setting.

The PRS model complements extant models of organizational learning by providing possible mechanisms for tacit knowing that have not yet been elucidated. Specifically, as a perception‐based model its main conclusion is that all tacit knowledge must be built up within individuals, which has major implications for the time and energy invested in knowledge creation activities.

Future research can test the propositions given.

The conclusions of the paper suggest that tacit knowledge creation depends on practice by the knower. Ironically, this also suggests a method for how tacit knowledge can be developed even in virtual projects that involve information and communications technologies (ICTs) without face‐to‐face interaction.

The paper argues for a focus in knowledge management on the individual and leads to new insights about how best to manage tacit knowledge creation. Researchers looking at the concept of tacit knowledge and managers who want to understand the limitations and constraints on tacit knowledge development will find the paper's conclusions helpful.

Governance network managers are charged with triggering and sustaining collaborative dynamics, but often struggle to do so because they come from and interact with hierarchical and competitive organizations and systems. Thus, an important step toward effectively managing governance networks is to clarify collaborative dynamics. While the recently proposed collaborative governance regime (CGR) model provides a good start, it lacks both the conceptual clarity and parsimony needed in a useful analytical tool. This theoretical chapter uses the logic model framework to assess and reorganize the CGR model and then amends it using Follett’s theory of integrative process to provide a parsimonious understanding of collaborative dynamics, as opposed to authoritative coordination or negotiated cooperation. Uniquely, Follett draws from political and organizational theory practically grounded in the study of civic and business groups to frame the manner in which integrative process permeates collaboration. We argue that the disposition, style of relating, and mode of association in her integrative method foster collaborative dynamics while avoiding the counterproductive characteristics of hierarchy and competition. We develop an alternative logic model for studying collaborative dynamics that clarifies and defines these dynamics for future operationalization and empirical study.

This study explores the yet understudied productive aspects of uncertainty in the organization of creative collaboration and scrutinizes the practices that allow participants to fruitfully use it as a resource for the creation of novelty. In contrast to former conceptualizations of uncertainty as a quantity to be reduced through organizing, we apply a qualitative heuristic where uncertainty may shift different dimensions regarding participation (who?), procedure (how?) and content (what?). Based on eight creativity biographies in two creative fields, music production and pharmaceutical development, encompassing 36 semi-structured qualitative interviews, we identify embracing, ignoring, and fixing uncertainty as three distinct, yet interrelated practices to engage with uncertainty and thereby enable the emergence of valuable novelty in interaction. We further discover that the participants shift these practices between the different dimensions of uncertainty during the process of creative collaboration. Moreover, we argue that these shifts are necessary to maintain creativity in collaborative processes. Thereupon, we contribute insights to the so far enigmatic notion of organizing for collaborative creativity.

Despite the importance of brokers in creative projects, limited attention has been devoted to the micro-interactions by which brokers induce others’ collaboration while simultaneously retaining some control over creative production. Building on an interactionist perspective, we develop the concept of brokerage style – i.e., a recognizable pattern in the ways in which a broker interacts with others. By using different brokerage styles in different phases of a creative project, brokers can orient the social interactions among project participants, “charging” those interactions with different types of emotional energy and mutual attention, eventually inducing collective collaboration and limiting participants’ expectations of control. We illustrate our interactionist model of brokerage styles with examples from the music and TV industries.

A creative identity, the incorporation of creativity into self-definition, is associated with creative outcomes. Given the importance of creativity to organizational success, understanding creative identity and in particular creative identity work (the formation and maintenance of creative identity) can be useful in understanding creatives within organizations. To be considered creative, individuals need to not only produce unique artefacts, but these artefacts need to be assessed by legitimate judges as being creative. Judges may be within an organization (e.g., senior researchers within a laboratory) or may be external to an organization (e.g., award judges in international advertising competitions). Underpinning creative identity work is the creative assessment, however this assessment is ambiguous and contextual. In other words, what is considered creative in one context or by one judge may not be considered creative in another context or by different judges. The ambiguity of the creative assessment makes creative identity work a precarious undertaking. Based on two case studies – a R&D laboratory and an advertising agency – this research explores the strategies which creative individuals employ in their creative identity work in response to the ambiguity of the creative assessment. This research contributes to the growing area of creative identity research by unpacking three specific strategies used as part of identity work of creatives: defending, emotional distancing and differentiating. These strategies assist the creatives in maintaining a coherent sense of who they are within the organizational context despite the unpredictability of the creative assessment.