Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
Creativity and
Creativity, planning planning
and organizational change
C.M.J. van Woerkum and M.N.C. Aarts
Communication Management Group, Wageningen University, 847
Wageningen, The Netherlands, and
K. de Grip
Ministry of Internal Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the relationship between creativity and planning
perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach – Creativity is considered to be the source of new and competitive
ideas through which an organization positions itself in its environment. A distinction is made between
means-end planning and emerging alternative approaches to planning. It is argued that in means-end
planning schemes creativity is predominantly a problem solving activity seeking to find an ideal mix
of instruments to meet a clearly stated goal.
Findings – Demonstrates that creativity can be much more if other perspectives on planning are
accepted. A broadened concept of creativity is presented, pointing to strategic devices that promote
and facilitate creativity in an organization.
Originality/value – Is of value by stressing that “being creative” should be a part of an
organization’s everyday experiences, a component of normal meetings, and a reality for all members of
an organization.
Keywords Organizational change, Organizational planning, Corporate strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Planning is widely considered to be related to goal setting and finding the means to
achieve these goals. Goals must be formulated as clearly as possible. Means must be
selected in an accountable way – that is, an outsider-expert is able to trace and accept
the strategic arguments, and the planning can be later evaluated.
However, such a perspective on planning is restricted and contested. Vast amounts
of literature address the pitfalls of this planning ideal (Argyris, 1994; Mintzberg, 1994;
Pepper, 1995; Dörner, 1997; Ashmos et al., 2000). The basic idea behind much of the
criticism is that means-end planning overrates predictability. The world, critics argue,
is too dynamic and complex to fit neatly within the boundaries of even the most
elaborate means-end planning. We must find other ways to organize and control our
activities. Over the past 20 years, many scholars have been challenged to develop
alternative planning models.
In this paper, we focus on one aspect of alternative planning models: the function
and use of creativity. Creativity is the source of new and competitive ideas, through Journal of Organizational Change
which an organization positions itself within its environment. In rapidly changing Management
Vol. 20 No. 6, 2007
conditions organizations must meet the challenge of being “capable of creating pp. 847-865
tomorrow’s business while maintaining today’s.” (Hurst et al., 1996, p. 381). The q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
prerequisite is to make existing procedures as efficient as possible, lowering the costs DOI 10.1108/09534810710831055
JOCM at all levels while simultaneously creating new ideas for products or processes in the
20,6 future. Emphasizing the first point – cost reduction – can deliver significant profit in
the short-term but fails to recognize future needs. Clearly, there is a quest for
innovation.
However, if we accept the idea of multiple dependencies of organizations vis-à-vis
their environment, this obligation to innovate for the future is an appealing one. We
848 need to recognize the influence of future markets, governmental policies, technological
opportunities, competitor strategies, media coverage of the firm’s performance on
social and environmental issues, and stock market tendencies. How can one adapt to
the wide array of influencing factors that constitute a contemporary company’s
biotope? The driving motive is obvious. Those that best adapt will grow and flourish,
those that fail to adequately renew themselves will decline or die. Innovation is a
prerequisite:
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it
widely through the organization, and quickly flesh out the knowledge with new technologies
and products. These activities characterize the “knowledge-creating” company whose sole
business is continuous innovation (Nonaka, 1996, p. 18).
This change must be planned. However, planning as such cannot deliver these ideas.
By its stress on ex ante and ex post evaluation, planning can only prevent the
application of wrong ideas. Therefore, planning needs creativity as a counterpart in
order to guarantee results. And, of course, the reverse is also true: without planning,
many creative ideas will not be effectively exploited.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that ideas about creativity and its use are
connected with perspectives on planning. In line with this we will argue that
new concepts of planning give rise to new thinking about creativity, which may
enhance the capacity for organizational innovation. In so doing, we will try to balance
new ideas about planning with new ideas about creativity, demonstrating how the
benefits build a better fit with a dynamic world.
We will start with a short description of two fundamentally different perspectives
on planning. We assume that alternative planning approaches to strictly means-end
thinking, should not be viewed as anti-planning, but rather as new and reasonable
methods for planning in particular situations.
Next, we will consider creativity in different models of planning and change. In the
means-end planning scheme using creativity is mainly a problem solving activity – to
find the ideal mix of instruments needed in order to meet a clearly stated goal. We will
demonstrate that creativity can be much more if we accept other ideas about planning.
Finally, we will make this broadened concept of creativity more explicit, outlining
strategic devices to promote and facilitate creativity in an organization.
However, it is not only the external environment that is difficult to survey. Inter-human
processes within an organization, shaped by emotions, norms or values, have dynamic
properties which are difficult to grasp and are even more difficult to “steer”
(Doorewaard and Benschop, 2002; Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001). This
exacerbates doubts about predictability: how do we know if we can adapt ourselves
properly? We can further rationalize and refine our planning activities. But is that
enough?
This problem relates to salient questions about the guiding power of a written plan.
A plan must steer actions but in practice, “the plan is never the sole focus of orientation
for our action” (Joas, 1996, p. 161). Priorities are influenced by norms that are socially
constructed in our daily encounters. The reality of organizational life, consisting of
both vertical and horizontal interactions, is different from the reality that planners
perceive or imagine. Many planners tend to neglect the “discursive, interpretive,
communal nature of organizational life” (Addleson, 1996) in which priorities and
purposes are developed in continuous interaction.
This not only applies for rank-and-file members of an organization, even planners
themselves fail to act solely based on their carefully constructed plans. As Mintzberg
and Quin (1991) demonstrated, managers tend to have verbal orientations; they act and
react on the basis of an uninterrupted stream of ad hoc verbal contacts. We can
conclude that managers are action-oriented more than reflective, and that actions are
daily outcomes or results.
In past editions of the journal Organizational Change authors who are active in
fields such as chaos theory (Lichtenstein, 2000), contingency theory (Ashmos et al.,
2000) or learning organizations theory (Ford and Ogilvie, 1996; Bierly et al., 2000) have
discussed alternatives. These authors consider the need (throughout the whole
organization) for flexibility and attunement to the environment – including manifold
linkages to different stakeholder groups – in order to guarantee quick and relevant
responses. From various backgrounds, organizations are studied with the aim of
finding ways to deal with chaos, complexity and unpredictability. The learning
organization perspective, described by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995, in: Porth et al., 1999)
as “an inclusive approach to planning which brings in new voices, new perspectives
and new energy to the process.” This perspective is considered to be of high
importance in this context as it builds the capacity to change strategies, be creative,
and to avoid a narrow and rigid dependence on the status quo (Anderson, 1997,
JOCM in: Porth et al., 1999). We want to stress the growing attention for chaos, complexity
20,6 and unpredictability.
Another perspective we advocate is the interpretive view, a reaction against the
traditional system-structural view. The interpretive view holds that “information is
meaningless in the absence of organizational actors’ interpretations” (Ford and Ogilvie,
1996, p. 55). The environment of organizations is fundamentally ambiguous and cannot
850 be reduced by information per se. All “certainties” are socially constructed and open to
interpretation. The goal of management teams must be “to create and communicate
meanings which serve as the basis of subsequent action” (Giola and Chittipeddi, in:
Ford and Ogilvie, 1996, p. 57). These actions, however, are not to be seen as
implementation, but rather as learning trajectories in themselves. Many authors
promote experimentation that is guided by a clear sense of direction (instead of fixed
objectives). This sense of direction should be a general concern kept lively by
continuous internal discussion. It is not possible to “sink” a goal into an organization.
Such mechanical thinking about human change is increasingly replaced by more
sophisticated ideas in which interaction and participation are prerequisites.
We have grouped proposals emerging for different planning practices under the
label “alternative approaches to planning” – referring to alternatives to the means-end
planning addressed earlier. With this we combine a set of strategic ideas. We elicit
these ideas using Whittington’s (2001) well-known typology. In addition to what he
calls the “classical approach” (our means-end planning) he sees three other
perspectives.
The first is the evolutionary approach. Some authors depict this approach as
Darwinistic (Marion, 1999; Stacey et al., 2000). Of all species mutations some match
better than others with the characteristics of a (new) environment. Individuals with
specific mutations survive, others disappear. To improve chances for survival, a
species creates differences – the more differences, the better.
Whittington is somewhat pessimistic about the room for strategy and planning in
the evolutionary approach. Citing Williamson (1991, p. 19), he reiterates: “Economy is
the best strategy.” Efficiency and reduction of transaction costs are most important.
However, Williamson sees opportunities for new technologies, for example, the Sony
Walkman of the 1980s with more than 160 versions launched in the American market.
In this case, the environment makes the selections, rather than the managers.
Customers, when asked about their willingness to pay for a new technology are “unable
to articulate their future needs” (Tidd et al., 2001, p. 193). Only practice can do this.
We take a more optimistic view regarding the merits of the evolutionary approach.
In an unpredictable environment differences must be fostered in order to create new
fits. This is true for both products and services. Of course, the random variation of the
plant and animal world is not an appropriate comparison. Humankind differentiates
both contextually and strategically (Gabora, 2000). To deal with the unpredictability of
consumer reactions requires market differentiation. Opportunities for differentiation
vary enormously (e.g. a publishing company versus a car manufacturer). But in many
situations more experimentation is advisable, then an evaluation of the results can be
done and next steps considered. The success of Honda in its fight against Yamaha is
one of the most cited examples in this realm (Stark, 1992). In the “variety war” Honda
introduced or replaced 113 motorcycle models in order to assess the latest trends in
consumer preferences.
However, it is not only at the product or service level where differences matter. Creativity and
Information identified as being useful for the development of new products or for the planning
operational tasks of an organization can also express varying degrees of heterogeneity.
A rich, multi-dimensional information system is geared more towards complex,
dynamic environments. Likewise, a productive organizational culture can be seen as
one in which the use of different perspectives regarding organizational dimensions
(financial, social, cultural, psychological, legal, political, etc.) is rewarded. 851
This calls for an internal communication system wherein the contributions of all
members of an organization are taken into account, from the specialists of industrial
engineering to sales people, public relations (PR) officers and telephone receptionists.
They can all “make a difference” and are useful in getting an adaptive response to
emerging requirements. Of course, more differentiation can mean a lack of coordination
and control (Galbraith, 1996). Balancing these elements is a new challenge for
innovative organizations.
The second approach Whittington mentions is the processual approach
emphasizing the restrictions of human cognition. People are “boundedly rational”
(March and Simon, 1958). They are incapable of processing all available information
(choice of information is in itself a selection). The environment is basically
“unknowable.” Within an organization, members grapple with combining cognitive
biases and personal objectives.
The rationale for planning is that by “cautious comparison of successful options
and careful maintenance of consensus” (Whittington, 2001, p. 23) an organization can
be adapted to its environment – a process of “logical incrementalization” – based on
experimentation and learning. The process may be informed by a “strategic intent
broad enough to allow flexibility and opportunism . . . ” (Whittington, 2001, p. 24). The
relationship between thinking and acting is reciprocal. People act according to ideas
about how they can best act and reflect on the outcomes of their activities.
The third approach we consider is the systemic perspective, stressing cultural
dimensions within an organization and in broader society. People are not perfect
profit maximizers but act according to social values and norms specific to their
context (Pepper, 1995). This could explain the different planning cultures evident in
different countries. In multi-/trans-national companies sociological sensitivity must be
used when planning and implementing new strategies.
These three alternative approaches to planning serve as our framework within which
we develop our ideas about creativity. Like Whittington, we consider the processual
approach as the most distinctive alternative to means-end planning, though we also note
that differentiation and experimentation (drawn from the evolutionary approach) and
cultural dimensions (from the systemic approach) must be considered. As previously
stated, means-end thinking relates to finding new tools or instruments for problem
solving creativity. The salient question remains: if we take an alternative – where might
we end up?
3. Creativity
Creativity is the ability to generate novel ideas that are useful at a given moment. With
this simple definition we include several elements.
Firstly, the notion of novelty. We look at novelty as a phenomenon in everyday life
rather than the novelty of an outstanding artist or scientist. Anyone can be creative
JOCM and indeed must be creative in order to cope with his/her environment. We do not go so
20,6 far as to declare that the vast majority of our everyday utterances are creative in that
they form new combinations of words and/or meanings never before expressed ( Joas,
1996). For us, novel phrases must contain an element of surprise for recipients, which
deviate from what is expected. However, our scope is broad and “democratic.” Nobody
is excluded from creative processes. We can, however, learn from the artistic domain,
852 as will be elaborated later in this paper.
Usefulness is a second element in our definition so as to avoid the random novelties
such as computer-generated nonsense or the incoherent wails of a drunken sailor. This
element refers not only to the practical or material, but also to new ways of describing
reality or new evaluations that may also be very useful. The people involved determine
the degree of utility.
The value of creativity is not necessarily long term. Creativity can be the product of
an activity (individual, social) that is temporarily valuable for individuals or groups,
but that might later be replaced by other and possibly better ideas.
By describing creativity as “socially useful” and “of temporal use” we do not
necessarily put a positive label on the creative product. Some ideas are not seen as
novel or useful in original social context in which they appear. It may well be later that
they are recognized as being “good.” Other ideas are labeled as “creative,” but in the
long-term turn out to have been totally wrong or even harmful. Creativity is in the
present – what people think now, for better or for worse.
Both individuals and groups can be creative. What is the relationship between
group and individual creativity? In later sections, we consider the social context of
creative processes. At this point, we take a position on the perspective that “the
individual is the source of freedom while the social is the source of constraints and
limitations” as being over simplistic (Wenger, 1998). We know that individual
creativity is a social product, based on common language and on many encounters that
mould a richness of experience that is inherited from a social environment (Elias, 1939;
Goudsblom, 2001). There is no such a thing as an autonomous individual, who is
isolated from their social environment. Yet at the same time, the social encounter
between individuals can (not will) enhance the creative process, depending on how
these encounters are arranged. A key point is the willingness of groups to value
individual contributions as an obvious way to create new and different ideas. Friedman
uses the term “individuation” to describe this process. “Individuation in a group exists
when members are encouraged to attend to, value, express, and regulate their internal
states and behavior” (Friedman, 1984, p. 14). The relationship between organizations
and individuals is also explained by Antonacopoulou and Gabriel (2001) who argue
that organizational change forces individuals to come face-to-face with their ignorance
and vulnerability which can stimulate innovation, growth and creativity
(Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001, p. 446).
In order to reflect on what these general elements mean for creativity, we elaborate five
discrete points:
Ideas come to the fore in a random manner steered by a hidden entity that makes
certain associations possible. The rational-analytic mood is characterized by the
opposite:
.
elements of deliberation are separate;
.
there is no sense of distance from the environment; and
.
the conscious parts of decision making (e.g. arguments) are dominating.
Csikzentmihalyi offers not less than nine criteria for what he coins as “the flow
experience.” Some of these resemble the three elements stated above. Interestingly, his
idea is that people in a creative mood “know” what is good/bad (e.g. when to take risks)
and enjoy their work for its own sake, in comparison to their normal non-creative
behavior (Csikzentmihalyi, 1996).
JOCM Merging the creative and the rational-analytic mood unavoidably harms the
20,6 potencies of both. We are distanced from the rich and novel ideas available yet our
critical, detached eye is blinded by our positive findings. Hence, the need to separate
the two moods.
Dividing these roles amongst different people may address the challenge: with some
people taking creative roles, others the critical. This solution is chosen, for instance, in
858 organizations that produce cultural services such as in advertising where creative
professionals (in the discovery of new concepts for communication campaigns or in the
production of visuals and texts) are often accompanied by account managers and
financial experts (who, based on figures, estimate the best routes for distributing
messages via the media). However, in alternative approaches to planning we try to
escape localizing in all its forms. Thus, we explore other possibilities. We seek to
combine the two roles in one person.
Several books concerning specialized tasks such as writing, suggest a clear
awareness of the differences in mood that are required and the consequences. An
interesting example comes from an old book about the writing process, in which Tichy
(1966) proposes four steps:
(1) plan;
(2) write;
(3) cool; and
(4) revise.
In her view, the creative part (writing) is separate from the rational-analytic parts
(planning, revising), with an extra guarantee that moods will not merge ensured
through the use of a cooling down period.
In organizational activities, we should be aware at the moment we get involved if
they are creative or not. Therefore, we have to keep in mind the differences in mood in
order to preserve their specific qualities.
5.4 Orality
The social use of language is another potential source of creativity. In free discussions, 861
we can arrive at relatively new ideas by the fundamental unpredictability of free
speech (Stacey, 2001). In free speech people experiment with new thoughts, never
before articulated. Free speech allows for imagination, novel perspectives on different
directions and the necessary steps for realizing these new ideas. An important
characteristic of speech or “orality” is the predominant influence of the speaker’s
intention and the gist of the story as compared to written products, wherein data and
details are more critical (Hildyard and Olson, 1982; Nonaka, cited in Lichtenstein, 2000,
p. 533; Van Woerkum, 2002). Space for experimentation is restricted where presenters
constantly refer to texts. Often in presentations this is the experience – literacy
invades the domain of orality in the form of slides or power point images where lists of
(often) many points require the attention, and the focus on quantitative data hampers
the free experimental discussion necessary for stimulating creativity. The stress on
minute-taking so that everything is recorded and approved, also has a restrictive
influence on what can be put forward. Here, we perceive the merging of critical
assessment (the rational-analytic mood) with the creative mood. The more texts
which are used are referred to, the more creativity is restricted. Speech is fast in being
sent out and relatively slow in receiving. Texts are to the contrary, written slowly and
decoded quickly. In texts, we find much more self-monitoring than in free speech.
Therefore, we should try to mould creative periods as encounters that preserve the
potential for orality with as little text-bound input as possible. Of course, at later
moments, facts and issues must be verified through the use of texts and transcription.
Planning, including alternative approaches to planning, demands a great deal of paper
work. But during the creative process itself, spontaneous discourse can best operate
without too much dependence on documentation (Van Woerkum, 2002; Lichtenstein,
2000; Wenger, 1998).
Since, orality is especially important when it comes to enlarging the conceptual
space, by interacting people, leading to new creative combinations, it is one of the
driving forces in alternative approaches of planning. But there are more merits.
Changing existing perspectives on organization-environment relationships
(re-framing) is nearly impossible unless people are encouraged to become involved
in intense creative interactions. Moreover, the sharing of a new common perspective
built on trust cannot be realized without speech, in which the intention of the speakers,
in mutual interaction, is at stake (Addleson, 1996, p. 38).
6. Conclusion
Creativity, as the cultural competence to deal with new and complex environments, is
one of the assets of innovative organizations. In means-end planning, this creativity is
mainly restricted to creative problem solving: how to construct an ideal set of
instruments for a concrete objective. In alternative approaches to planning, a
broadened concept of creativity is more appropriate. In this paper, we sketched the
JOCM outlines for this kind of creativity. Planning should be focused on the enlargement of
20,6 conceptual space, it should involve a spiritual dimension and should be based on
intrinsic motivation, avoiding localizing and privileging and be open for action as well
as for cognition. We have formulated a few ideas to foster creativity within an
organization. It may be useful to transfer these principles into practice. We explored
the relationship between the creative mood and alternative approaches to planning, the
862 distinction between cognitive and conative creativity, the social character of the
creative process and the function of orality. In doing so, we made use of the ideas of
many authors who write about planning, complexity, organizational learning, and
the role of spirituality in organizations. This strengthens the idea that the way
we problematize the relationship between planning and creativity fits into a specific
mode of thinking about organizations and organizational change for which there is
growing attention.
We submit that renewed attention should be paid to the position of creativity in an
organization. Often creativity is saved for special days devoted to a new organizational
mission or for specific creativity-triggering activities such as “brainstorming.” We
would like to argue that “being creative” should be a part of an organization’s everyday
experience as a component of normal meetings and a reality for all members of an
organization. Of course, in some ways creativity is always present in informal
encounters and off-the-record comments within more formal interactions. The point is
that creativity can be brought in and used more effectively if we are aware of its crucial
meaning and of the way we can arrange it methodically.
As we saw, alternative approaches to planning offer a lot of possibilities for
organizing the creative capital of an organization in a promising way. They go hand in
hand. Without planning, creativity is out of control and cannot be properly effectuated.
Without creativity these new ideas about planning make planning an empty vessel,
doomed to founder.
References
Aarts, M.N.C. and Van Woerkum, C.M.J (2002), “Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex
problems”, in Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (Eds), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social
Learning in Rural Resource Management, Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 421-37.
Addleson, M. (1996), “Resolving the spirit and substance of organizational learning”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Amabile, T.M. (1990), “Within you, without you; the social psychology of creativity and beyond”,
in Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 61-91.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Ambrose, D. (1998), “Creative organizational vision building through collaborative,
visual-metaphorical thought”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 229-342.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Gabriel, Y. (2001), “Emotion, learning and organizational change
towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 435-51.
Argyris, C. (1994), “Good communication that blocks learning”, Harvard Business Review,
July-August, pp. 77-85.
Ashmos, D.P., Duchon, D. and McDaniel, R.R. Jr (2000), “Organizational responses to complexity: Creativity and
the effect on organizational performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 577-94. planning
Bahle, J. (1930), Zur Psychologie des musikalischen Gestaltens. Ein Untersuchung Űber das
Komponieren auf experimenteller und historischen Grundlage (On the Psychology of
Musical Creation; An Inquiry into Composing on an Experimental and Historic Base),
Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.
863
Bierly, P.E., Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E.W. (2000), “Organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618.
Boden, M. (1991), The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Borofsky, R. (2001), “Wondering about Wutu”, in Liep, J. (Ed.), Locating Cultural Creativity, Pluto
Press, London, pp. 62-70.
Bunker, B.B. and Alban, B.T. (1997), Large Group Interventions, Josses-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Butts, D. (1999), “Spirituality at work: an overview”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 328-31.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity; How and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
De Bono, E. (2000), available at: www.edwarddebono.com
De Sade, M. (1998), The Crimes of Love, Peter Limited, London (a translation of the first printing
of 1800).
Doorewaard, H. and Benschop, Y. (2002), “HRM and organizational change in emotional
endeveavor”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 272-86.
Dörner, D. (1997), The Logic of Failure, Metropolitan Books, New York, NY.
Elias, N. (1939), Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische
Untersuchungen (About the Process of Civilization, Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic
Studies), Haus zum Falken, Basel.
Ford, C.M. and Ogilvie, D.T. (1996), “The role of creative action in organizational learning and
change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 54-62.
Friedman, P.G. (1984), “The limits of consensus: group processes for individual growth”, in
Phillips, G.M. and Word, J.T. (Eds), Emergent Issues in Human Decision Making, Southern
Illinois Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 142-60.
Gabora, L. (2000), “The beer can theory of creativity”, in Bentley, P. and Corne, D. (Eds), Creative
Evolutionary Systems, Morgan Kauffman, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-26.
Galbraith, J.R. (1996), “Designing the innovating organization”, in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How
Organizational Learn, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 156-81.
Gedo, J.E. (1990), “More on creativity and its vicissitudes”, in Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds),
Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 34-45.
Goertzel, B. (1997), From Complexity to Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Goudsblom, J. (2001), Stof waar honger uit ontstond. Over evolutie en sociale processen (Dust, Out
of which Hunger has been Arisen. About Evolution and Social Processes), Meulenhof,
Amsterdam.
Guastello, S.J., Shissler, J., Driscoll, J. and Hyde, T. (1998), “Are some cognitive styles more
creatively productive than others”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 77-91.
Hildyard, A. and Olson, D.R. (1982), “On the comprehension and memory of oral vs written
discourse”, in Tannen, D. (Ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and
Literacy, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
JOCM Holman, P. and Devane, T. (Eds) (1999), The Change Handbook, Berret-Koehler Publishers,
San Francisco, CA.
20,6
Hoogerwerf, E.C. and Poorthuis, A.M. (2002), “The network multilogue: a chaos approach to
organizational design”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 382-90.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J.C. and White, R.E. (1996) in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How Organizations Learn,
864 International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 381-409.
Joas, H. (1996), The Creativity of Action, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lichtenstein, B.M.B. (2000), “Emergence as a process of self-organizing; new assumptions and
insights from the study of non-linear dynamic systems”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 526-44.
Liep, J. (Ed.) (2001), Locating Cultural Creativity Introduction, Pluto Press, London, pp. 1-13.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Marion, R. (1999), The Edge of Organization; Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social
Systems, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work
attitudes, an exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-47.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72,
pp. 107-14.
Mintzberg, H. and Quin, J. (1991), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nonaka, I. (1996), “The knowledge-creating company”, in Starkey, K. (Ed.), How Organizations
Learn, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 18-31.
Pepper, G.L. (1995), Communicating in Organizations: A Cultural Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Porth, S.J., McCall, J. and Bausch, Th.A. (1999), “Spiritual themes of the ‘learning organization’”,
Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-20.
Seitz, J.A. (2001), The Political Economy of Creativity, Department of Political Science and
Psychology, York College, City University of New York, New York, NY.
Sorrentino, R.M. and Roney, C.J.R. (1999), The Uncertain Mind; Individual Differences in Facing
the Unknown, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Stacey, R.D. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations, Learning and Knowledge
Creation, Routledge, London.
Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management; Fad or Radical
Challenges to Systems Thinking?, Routledge, London.
Stark, G. (1992), “Time – the next source of competitive advantage”, in Mercer, D. (Ed.),
Managing the External Environment: A Strategic Perspective, Sage, London, pp. 215-2332.
Tichy, H.J. (Ed.) (1966), Effective Writing, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, Chichester.
Van Woerkum, C.M.J. (1987), Massamediale voorlichting; een werkplan (Communication via the
Mass Media: A Working Plan), Boom, Meppel/Amsterdam.
Van Woerkum, C.M.J. (2002), “Orality in environmental planning”, European Environment,
Vol. 12, pp. 160-72.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Creativity and
West, M.A. (1990), “The social psychology of innovation in groups”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. planning
(Eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies,
Wiley, Chichester.
Whittington, R. (2001), What is Strategy – and Does it Matter, Thomson Learning, London.
Williamson, O. (1991), “Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 12, p. 76, Special issue. 865
Wilkes, A.L. (1997), Knowledge in Minds: Iindividual and Collective Processes in Cognition,
Psychology Press, Hove.
Corresponding author
M.N.C. Aarts can be contacted at: noelle.aarts@wur.nl