November 14, 2011 § Leave a comment
Durkheim (1893) motivated the sociological concern for effects of social structure on individuals.
Social network theory has roots in sociometrics and graph theory (Moreno, 60; Erdös, 59).
Early social psychologists used social networks to study determinants of friendships such as spatial distance, balance theory and sociograms (Festinger et al., 50; Heider, 58).
The development of weak ties and centrality in the 70s brought a distinct identity to social network theory (Gran, 73; Freeman, 77).
Social network theory explores the body of knowledge relating organizational life to the topology of social structure. The use of social networks solely as a methodological tool triggered debate whether development was still theoretical in Popperian terms (Popper, 02).
However, the two approaches are not contradictory if the scientific objectives are clarified.
The classification of networks as either an analytical tool or phenomena of social structure focuses on governance.
Raider & Krackhardt (02) propose various levels of social structure such as the dyad, the ego network and the group network.
Borgatti (03) distinguishes explanatory goals as the performance or homogeneity effects of social structure using the mechanisms of diffusion or social capital.
Mechanisms of networks can focus on reach or demand effects.
Reach effects are consequences of social access to remote resources such as job opportunity and demand effects where actors are the object of relations such as status (Gran,73; Park & Podolny, 00).
Borgatti (03) focuses on structuralist and connectionist mechanisms where structuralist effects are the benefits of position and connectionist effects are the actual flows across structure (Cook & Emerson, 78).
Burt’s (92) structural holes paradigm analyzes both structuralist benefits where control advantages accrue at the broker position and connectionist benefits that have information advantages.
Podolny (01) proposed pipes and prisms model where brokerage resolves uncertainty through information flows and status is more efficient with minimal uncertainty.
In Borgatti’s framework classes of outcomes are structural or social capital through brokerage, environmental shaping, social access or contagion (Burt, 92a; Khanna & Palepu, 99; 01; Strang & Macy, 01).
Giddens (79) embeddedness perspective uses the social network as a reconciliation mechanism between structure and agency.
Granovetter (92) made a similar distinction between structural and network form and relational embeddedness. Organizations are embedded in network structures that constrain actions and provide opportunities to achieve goals.
A study of the NYC apparel industry viewed embeddedness as a form of governance contrasted to arm’s-length relations that generates outcomes independent of the narrow economic interest of the relationship (Uzzi, 96; 97).
Betweeness centrality identifies positions with the potential for control of communication (Freeman 77).
Burt (80; 92a; 92b; 01b) focused on structural holes and brokerage positions.
Brokerage, the disconnection between structural holes that lead to information and control benefits was reformulated as a source of social capital.
Social capital is a salient concept not matched to a topological definition similar to embeddedness.
Social capital is hypothesized as capital attached to belonging to a network of relationships human, economic, or cultural.
Bourdieu’s (86) social capital is the aspect of the social context that enables action, with value coming from trust, information, and norms (Coleman 88).
Status refers to ordering and argues status and structural holes have opposing effects if confronted by egocentric uncertainty (Podolny, 01).
High status benefits less from ego-uncertainty, and resolves alter uncertainty.
Burt (01a) found support for disadvantaged actors gain no benefit from playing broker, but they gain from closure around tight group of sponsors.
Structural preference is antecedent of social network analysis and assumes the existence of network relationships and examines consequences.
The origin of relations focuses on proximity and similarity (Newcomb, 43).
A homophilous tendency means that existing organizational demography influences social structure and future evolution (Blau 77; McPherson & Rotolo 96).
Barley (90) studied how technology shapes structures by the mediation of roles in different contexts and different social interactions.
Mehra and Kilduff (01) found that high self-monitors are likely to occupy central positions in social networks.
November 13, 2011 § Leave a comment
EMOTIONS/AFFECT: Feelings of workers: how organizations affect them and how they affect organizations.
Fisher, Hanna (1931)job dissatisfaction as the product of “nonadjustive emotional tendencies” unrest is misattributed by workers to their job situations.
Attitude, “persistent tendency to feel and behave in a particular way toward some object” (Luthans, 2002)
“Moods” generalized feeling states not typically identified with a particular stimulus and not sufficiently intense to interrupt thought processes (Thayer 1989)
“Emotions” associated with specific events or occurrences and are intense enough to disrupt thought processes (Frijda 1993)
AFFECTIVE STATUS OF JOB SATISFACTION: “positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job”; cognitive, affective dimension(Organ, Near 1985)
Brief & Roberson Paradox: Job satisfaction construed in affective terms, only its cognitive aspects are measured
Job satisfaction: (a) Evaluative judgment, affect antecedent, and (b) Affective component, then affect an indicator
Dispositional Influences: Job satisfaction is influenced by “affective dispositions” (Judge 1992), Personality traits labeled temperaments (Watson 2000)
Neuroticism [negative affectivity (NA)] and extroversion [positive affectivity (PA)] (Watson & Clark 1992)
Processes by which temperaments can influence job satisfaction are not yet well understood
Personality operates through multiple channels to affect job satisfaction
PRODUCTION OF MOODS AND EMOTIONS IN THEWORKPLACE:
Exogenous Factors:in the workplace that influence the feelings experienced, notcarryover states, recurring cycles, or dispositional influences.
(George 1996): stressful events, leaders, workgroup characteristics, physical settings, organizational rewards and punishments.
Positives; Advances methodologically, increased use of experience sampling, less reliance on cross-sectional designs.
Negatives; Discrete emotions not focus of study; Economic events/conditions have not taken their appropriate place as potential job stressors
Potential job stressorshas no widely accepted theoretical frame of reference.
Leaders:affect followers (George 2000). Transformational leaders use strong emotions to arouse similar feelings in audiences (Conger & Kanungo 1998).
Managers foster and shape arousal through symbols (Ashforth & Humphrey 1995). Fitness (2000)what angered people depended upon their organizational position.
Work Group Characteristics: work groups commonly have consistent or homogeneous affective reactions (George 1990, 1995)
“Group affective tone” characteristic levels of personality traits within groups, resulting from ASA processes (Schneider 1987)
(a) Common socialization, influences (Hackman 1992); (b) Task similarity and interdependence (Gallupe et al. 1991); (c) Membership stability; (d) Mood regulation (Sutton 1991); (e) Emotional contagion (Hatfield et al. 1994);
Barsade (2002) positive emotional contagion leads to greater cooperativeness,reduces group conflict, rate task performance and others in group more highly.
Suggests a social dynamics mediation through the process of sharing emotions for an organizational outcome to appear.
Meso Organizational effects of emotions: Huy’s (1999; 2002) More effort in elaborating a multi-level analysis of effects of emotions in org change situations
Links individual level affects “emotional reconciliation” and org-level affects such as “identification with the organization” to predict receptivity to org change
Huy (2002) Two salient emotional dimensions: emotional commitment to personally champion the change projects and attending to recipients’ emotions
Physical Settings:Oldham et al. (1995): music improved the mood states of workers
Rafaeli & Sutton (1990)store busyness related negatively to cashiers’ displayed positive emotion, and customer demand to be related to positively
Wasserman et al. (2000), links between the aesthetics of symbols in organizations and the emotions felt by potential participants
Rewards/Punishments: Weiss et al. (1999b) Happiness influenced by outcomes,procedural fairness playing little role;
Guilt, anger, and, pride were influenced by specific combinations of outcomes and procedures.
Justice orientation to understanding affective reactions to organizational rewards/punishments largely ignored.
CONSEQUENCES OF MOODS AND EMOTIONS IN THEWORKPLACE
Judgments: Judge & Ferris (1993) Interpersonal affect and liking related to both performance ratings and intervening cognitive processes.
Fried et al. (1999) Relationship between NA and deliberate rating inflation.
Saavedra & Earley (1991) Self-efficacy higher exposed to a positive affect manipulation than to a negative affect manipulation.
Creative Problem Solving: Positive mood can enhance creative problem solving (Isen 1999).
Madjar et al. (2001) Positive mood, but not negative mood, predicted job ratings of creativity and mediated effects of social support on creativity ratings.
Helping Behaviors: Positive mood generally encourages helping behavior and reduces aggression (Isen & Baron 1991).
George (1991) Positive mood in previous week predicted supervisor ratings of altruism; leader’s positive mood predicted group members’ self-reports of customer service
General Performance: Positive affective states facilitate creativity and efficacy judgments, Negative affective states more thorough canvassing of problem solutions and more accurate judgments (Staw 1993).
Negotiations: Positive affect enhances cooperation, search for creative solutions (Forgas 1998)
Anger reactions can lead to reject offers in their best interests judged by pure economic standards (George et al. 1998),
Withdrawal Behaviors:Positive, but not negative, moods predicted absenteeism and that positive and negative moods predicted turnover intentions (George, 1989).
Cropanzano et al. (1993) NA and PA correlated with turnover intentions, with commitment mediating the effect
Pelled & Xin (1999) Both positive and negative mood predicted subsequent absenteeism, positive mood was more influential. Only negative mood predicts turnover.
Limitations of Research: Overemphasis study of mood at expense of discrete emotions
Less focused on particular performance dimensions and more focused on broader affect processesmay be more useful.
A process orientation requires better grasp of state-trait distinction.
Features of work environmentslikely to produce particular moods and emotions.
A worker’s perceptions of work environmentare not necessarily equivalent to more objective (independent) assessments of work events and conditions.
Self-reports may not adequately tap the constructs of experienced moods and emotions.
Affect at the work group level as a meaningful construct (Bartel&Saavedra, 2000)
November 12, 2011 § Leave a comment
Org ecology is an open natural systems model at the ecological level of analysis.
Open systems consists of coalitions of interest groups highly influenced by the environment and natural systems consist of collectivities seeking survival (Scott 03).
The ecological level of analysis examines relations of organizations to the environment or relations that develop between organizations (Selznick 49, Pfeff & Sal 78).
Resource dependence, Marxist theory, institutional theory and postmodern theory all operate at the ecological level.
Community ecology, inter/intra-organizational ecology and institutional ecology are different variants of the organizational ecology stream of literature but I will focus on population ecology (Astley 85; Zucker 89; HannnanFreem 77; Aldrich 79).
The difference between population, community and institutional ecology is primarily organizational grouping. Community ecology uses the areal organizational field level focusing on network relations between organizations in the same geographical area.
Institutional ecology uses the functional organizational field viewing the societal sector as a collection of orgs that influence the focal organization, and constitute a recognized area of organizational life (Scott Meyer 91, Di & Powell, 83).
Population ecology studies populations of orgs the key research question why some org forms survive over others and why there are some many kinds of organization (H&F 77).
H&F 89 describe org populations as having similar blueprints, unitary character and common dependence on the environment.
Natural selection theory of organizations contends that org forms best fit to the environment are selected and proliferate.
Baum & Amburgey (02) argue the field is based on 3 main observations: 1. Aggregates of orgs exhibit diversity, 2. Orgs are inert compared to environmental changes and 3. Orgs appear and disappear continuously.
Population ecology studies the birth and death rates of a population determined by variation, selection, and retention effects of the environment.
Population ecology assumes variations provide raw material for selection processes, but orgs find difficulty in identifying and replicating successful variations.
Org ecologists argue that environmental constraints don’t allow firms to adapt and that selection is more likely.
The question then becomes what underlying change mechanisms cause birth or death of organizations in a niche and how niches evolve.
Key mechanisms of org ecology are inertia, niche width, resource partitioning, population dynamics and density dependence.
Inertia theory (Carroll 85; H&F 84) assumes that individual firm do not change due to both internal and external constraints.
Internal constraints consist of core and peripheral characteristics, peripheral protecting the core.
Core characteristics such as goals, forms of authority, core technology, and market strategy are difficult to reflect and act on.
External constraints are the firm characteristics that are signaled to the environment when growing, such as reliability and accountability.
These characteristics develop routinization, preventing change.
Even pop ecologists that accept orgs can change argue legitimacy selects out orgs without reliability or accountability resulting in a population resistance to change.
Niche width theory describes a niche as a particular combination of resources required to support a given type of population (H&F77).
A niches is realized when the equilibrium of the system support optimal org forms into which all organizations are isomorphic.
Systems are rarely in equilibrium and niche theory attempts to predict what happens when the environment varies.
Generalists and specialists are a popular typology in niche theory; generalists feed on varied features of the environment, give priority to exploitation, while specialists exploit optimally narrow environmental resources.
Resource partitioning theory (Carrol 85) proposes that as markets increase, large generalists move to the center of the market, due to economies of scale, freeing peripherial resources for specialists to develop.
Carrol & Swam (01) supported the theory in the brewery market.
Population dynamics (Carrol & Dela 82) offer that given a population, previous founding or failure signal opportunity or threat to potential entrants and the effect is informational, however it has not been well supported empirically.
Density is the number of orgs present at a given time in the population.
Density dependence argues that at low densities the increase of density increases legitimacy in turn increasing resources available to the population resulting in a mutualistic effect.
However, at high densities, competition decreases legitimacy reducing the resources available to the population resulting in a competitive effect.
Competitive and mutual effects are added in the main prediction of density dependence.
H&F (89) found a curvilinear inverse U-shaped effect of density on births.
B&P (95) found a curvilinear U-shaped relationship of density on deaths.
Hannan et al’s (95) study on the automotive industry demonstrates range differences between legitimacy effects which are earlier and on a larger geographic scale as compared to competition.
November 11, 2011 § Leave a comment
Economist identified three sources of principal-agent problems as moral hazard, adverse selection and asymmetric information (Akerlof 70; Spence 73; Arrow 85).
The delegation of decision making authority is problematic because interests diverge and the principal is unable to monitor the agent without cost.
The theory explores the issues of controlling and monitoring for the alignment of interests (Dalton et al, 03).
However, agents develop power bases and owners become dependent on expertise.
Labor wields power through union activity, strikes and slowdowns.
Individuals interfacing with suppliers and regulatory agencies also gain power.
Hickson et al (71) made three propositions about power based on Emerson’s (62) definition: 1. If you can cope with uncertainty, 2. Have low substitutability and 3. Have high centrality, through pervasiveness (degree) and immediacy (affect) then the greater the power.
Criticisms of governance models is the asocialized view of the actor as self-interested, atomistic, market oriented and uninfluenced by social relations. There is an unrealistic view of motivation as primarily financial gain, however behavioral research shows individuals are also motivated by things such as status and community (Hirsh et al, 90).
Guarding against opportunistic behavior can stifle initiative, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation within firms (Davis et al, 97).
Critiques led to a more socialized version of agency theory on whether incentives have more symbolic than economic value, whether demographic similarities is a true determinant of incentives, and whether increased board control is balanced by the social influence of management (Westphal Zajac 94,98,02).
Resource based view is a competence based model that asks why firms are different and answers because firms own specific rents.
Penrose (59) first had the idea of resources shaping firm behavior and org growth over time.
RBV assumes markets host imperfections and was developed in response to structure-conduct-performance and firm performance in industrial economics (Bain 50; Porter 80; Barney 86).
RBV focuses on the continuing search for rent and ways that unique resources can be deployed in changing circumstance (Rumelt 74).
RBV argues that attributes of the firm that are hard to copy drive performance and competitive advantage (Rumelt 84,87).
Resources of interest are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-tradable (VRIN) (Barney 91).
There is a strong epistemological criticism that RBV is tautology (Priem Butler 01; Williamson 99).
The existence of resources is based on differential performance which is then used to predict …performance.
The view does not address when a resource is crucial if everything has a unique resource and more resources are always better than less.
Finally, the theory ignores the environment which weakens any predictions on developing resources that may become obsolescent with environmental variation.
Dynamic capability research explores how firms build and sustain competitive advantage in dynamic markets.
Dynamic capabilities derive from managerial processes and competence only generates rents if based on routines difficult to imitate and heterogeneity is an outcome of Schumpterian competition (creative destruction) (Teece Pisano 97).
Dynamic capability has a strong affinity with learning perspectives, sustained competitive advantages depend on effective manipulation of knowledge sources.
Eisenhardt & Martin (00) explained dynamic capabilities by its contrast to RBV:
- RBV assets purchasable, DC assets deploy and recombine
- RBV rents assets, DC rents transformation
- RBV inimitable resource, DC inimitable processes
- RBV specific assets, DC specific skills, acq, learning
- RBV assets valuable, DC assets inimitable
- RBV no isolation of rents, DC isolation of rents
- RBV vs. SCP, DC vs. TCE
November 10, 2011 § Leave a comment
Org economics began with Coase’s (37) challenge of economic assumptions of perfect markets.
Coase asked why are there firms if markets are efficient and if firms could be more efficient how is the market not one huge firm?
The common assumptions of org economics are profit maximization, bounded or perfect rationality and that competition is the major driving force. There are two major paradigms of organizational economics.
Governance models focus on the exchange dynamics of actors and consist of transaction cost economics (Will 75), agency theory (Jens & Meck 76) and property rights (Hart 89).
Competency models focus on internal factor of differentiation such as the resource based view (Penrose 59), dynamic capabilities (Teece 84) and industrial organization (Porter 79).
Behavioral theory of the firm is an info processing perspective (C&M 63) that uses cognitive constructs at the org level such as goals, expectations and choices constructed by processes where individual cognitions are in relationship.
The Carnegie School led by M,S&G (58) introduced bounded rationality to explain limited info processing abilities that lead to quasi-resolutions of contradicting goals made compatible by local rationality, satisficing, and sequential attention to goals.
Rules, programs, schedules departmentalization, hierarchy, delegation and micro-coordination are coordination mechanisms organizations use to increase info processing. Organizations group tasks to minimize coordination, or transaction, costs and focus on efficiency.
Transaction cost analysis is an open rational system model studying orgs at the ecological level whether to make or buy a material or product.
In transaction cost economics there are two main governance structure, the market and the organization.
Transactions, the unit of analysis, are exchanges negotiated by contracts where parties are assumed to operate in self-interest.
Transaction cost economics has two key behavioral assumptions 1. Bounded rationality prevents the ability to see all possible consequences of the contract and 2. Opportunism prevents the possibility of relying on promises.
However those two factors alone are not enough to prevent proper contracting if the market operates with perfect information and competition. Williamson formalized three conditions that prevent reliance on contracts: 1. Uncertainty regarding unfolding events pertaining to the contract, 2. Asset specifity where the investment required for a contract is tied to it and 3. Frequency of the transactions is expected with regularity.
Market failures framework explains Williamson (85) fundamental transformation that predicts situations where bringing exchanges into the firm is better than leaving them in the marketplace.
In situations where exchangers have good opportunities to cheat and there are few exchangers to choose from it is better to bring the exchange inside the organization.
Freeland’s (00) seminal example is of GM and Fischer Body who made a big investment to supply GM.
Fisher Body made the investment and GM’s difficult in replicating the investment rapidly and cheaply elsewhere led GM to acquire Fischer Body. Organizations supplant long-term open contracts among exchange partners, replaced by employment contracts where people sell the promise to obey command (Commons 24).
A criticism of transaction cost is that it only explains static arbitrage, not the dynamic emergence of a firm and has no predictive power regarding the performance difference between firms.
There are claims it overestimates the power of hierarchical controls and incentive systems and underestimates the extent economic behavior is embedded in a web of social relations (Milgrom Roberts 88; Uzzi 97).
Opportunism has been critiqued as an unnecessary assumption and questioned whether an independent cause or a consequence of context (Conner Prahalad 96; Ghoshal Moran 96).
Agency theory focuses on conflicts of interest intrinsic to corporate governance typically between principal and agent (Barney Hesterley, 96).
Positive agency theory is a theory of firm ownership capital structure that examines the power and politics of corporate control, assuming the rationality of actors and constraints of real governance situations (Jen & Meck, 76, Eisenhardt 89).
Property rights include ownership and control not just the principal-agent problem (Alchian Demsetz 72, Hart 89).
Agency theory claims firms do not have unity of action and that political arenas generate asymmetric info because principals and agents are boundedly rational, self-interested, opportunistic and risk averse (Allison 71).
November 9, 2011 § Leave a comment
Groups and Teams. Shift from individuals outperform groups towards understanding models of group interaction, motivation, and disposition.
Creative problem solving (Treffinger et al. 2006): performance of individuals is generally superior to that of groups.
Convergent thinking: narrowing possibilities to a workable solution
Brophy (1998a,b) “Tri-level matching theory”: creative problem-solving process entails both considerable convergent and divergent thought in continuing alternation
Workplace Groups. Most creative work done in organizations is accomplished by two or more individuals working closely together (Thompson & Choi 2006)
Work Group Diversity. Detrimental to team satisfaction, affect, members’ impressions of own creative performance (Kurtzberg 2005)
Mannix & Neale (2005) Group diversity creates social divisions, with negative performance consequences.
Positive effects rise from differences such as functional background, education, or personality—only when the group process is managed carefully.
Polzer et al. (2002) Interpersonal congruence, degree which group members see others in group as others see themselves.
Social Psychology. Social environment can significantly influence an individual’s motivation for doing an activity
Intrinsic motivation principle of creativity: enjoyment, interest, and personal challenge is conducive to creativity, extrinsic motivation is generally detrimental
Hydraulic model. As extrinsic motivators and constraints were imposed, intrinsic motivation (and creativity) would decrease.
Additive model. Expectation of reward can sometimes increase extrinsic motivation without having any negative impact on intrinsic motivation or performance
Behaviorist studies: positive effects of instructions, rather than positive effects of expected rewards, on creativity.
Social Environment: Impact on the work environment (created by leaders or managers) on the creativity of individuals, groups, or entire organizations.
Amabile et al (2004) Perceived team leader support positively related to peer-rated creativity; Amabile et al. (1996, 2002) Time pressure detrimental to creativity
Polychronicity: the number of tasks with which an individual prefers to be involved at the same time; Autonomy fosters creativity
Psychological safety: Degree which people believe others in group will respond positively when they speak up about concerns, report mistakes, or propose new ideas
Constraints and pressures in the work environment are detrimental to creativity;
Org-wide supports, psych safety, sufficient time, autonomy, developmental feedback, and creativity goals are facilitative.
Culture. Big problem is using constructs and measures developed in the West in the East.
Lehman et al. (2004) psychological processes influence culture, culture influences psychological processes
Collectivist/ individualistic distinction given most attention. Cumulative multicultural experience fosters creativity.
CONCLUSION: TAKING A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
Campbell’s blind-variation-and-selective-retention theory of creativity,
Simonton (2007) Darwinian model subsumes all other theories of creativity as special case of a larger evolutionary framework.
Cognitive development framework (Piaget Vygotsky) in children could also be fruitfully applied to the creative process.
Kim explored the interrelation between imagination and creativity;
Lindqvist (2003) “zone of proximal development” might help explain how creative ideas or problem solutions take shape.
Guilford’s (1967) structure of intellect model, Mumford (2001) argued to take a broad, comprehensive approach to the study of creativity.
November 8, 2011 § Leave a comment
CREATIVITY: Capacity to generate new ideas, new approaches, and new solutions. Creative process, antecedents, inhibitors need better understanding
One subfield often seem entirely unaware of advances in another. Research at only one level of analysis and within only one discipline at a time.
Systems view of creativityarises through a system of interrelated forces operating at multiple levels, often requiring interdisciplinary investigation.
Definition and Measurement: Development of a novel product, idea, or problem solution that is of value
Difficulty finding consensus of definitional components beyond novelty and appropriateness (value).
Kaufmann (2003b):Called for distinction between novelty on the stimulus and response end and new taxonomy including proactive and reactive creativity
Eminent creativity: Rare displays, major impact; Incremental (everyday) creativity: Daily problem solving and ability to adapt to change
Beghetto & Kaufman (2007): “Mini c” creativity, creative processes in construction of personal knowledge and understanding
Creativity of Products. Experimental paradigms that vary conditions, individual’s creativity is assessed.
Creativity of Persons. Experimental paradigms, case studies, questionnaire-based investigations that operationalize creativity as a enduring and stable personality trait.
Neurological/Biological Basis. Advancement of technology, particularly fMRI, increases in access to equipment, responsible for explosion of info on the “creative brain”
Affect. Positive affect leads to higher levels of creativity, facilitates intrinsic motivation (Isen & Reeve 2005), flexible thinking and problem solving (Isen 2000); When negative affect has an influence, it is generally negative.
Mood-as-input model, Martin et al. (1993) Positive moods signal safety, motivating seek stimulation and think expansively, making more flexible associations.
Negative moods signal problems at hand, motivating to think precisely and analytically.
Dual tuning model, George & Zhou (2007) Experiencing both positive and negative moods over time in a supportive context should enhance creativity.
Positive mood: expansive, playful, divergent thinking and generation of new ideas. Negative mood: careful, systematic information processing.
Cognition. Kaufman & Baer (2002) Domain specific, exception of a general intelligence factor.
Necka (1999) Impaired functioning of “filter of attention”; Groborz & Necka (2003) “Cognitive control” attentional process; Conceptual combination Ward (2001).
Training. Metaanalytic review found creativity training programs typically result in gains in performance (Scott et al. 2004)
Individual Differences/Personality. Uniqueness.
Trait, relatively stable linked to high openness to experience (McCrae 1987); Inability to shut out incoming stimuli (Carson et al. 2003); Intrinsic motivation (Prabhu et al. 2008);
Lower levels of self-confidence (Kaufman 2002).
Individual Differences/Intelligence. Creativity and giftedness (Hennessey 2004) should not be equated.
Sternberg (2001) Dialectical relation of intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence advances existing societal agendas. Creative thinking opposes agendas and proposes new ones.
Wise people strike a balance between intelligence and creativity/the old and the new to achieve both stability and change within a societal context.
Gender Differences. Lee (2002) College students neither gender nor education exerted significant influence on creative thinking abilities
Psychopathology. Whether relation between creativity and mental illness. Nettle (2006) “hybrid” model whereby schizotypal personality traits can have fitness advantages or disadvantages, with mutational load and neurodevelopmental conditions determining which outcome (promotion or hindrance of creativity) is observed.