Knowledge Management - Literature Review
I. Introduction
Creativity is regarded as the major contributor to an organization’s competitiveness. However important creativity is, there has been a general problem in the management of creativity. Amabile (1998) claimed that most management impeded creativity in the name of evaluation, control and productivity. Managers often referred creativity to the imaginative approach people adopt in problem solving but ignored the importance of expertise and motivation. It is especially significant that managers have been placing too much emphasis on extrinsic motivation, mostly money, which in fact not an effective motivator to creativity. The utilization of quantitative survey instrument, KEYS, which consists of 78 questions to measure the work place conditions enhanced the validity of Amabile’s findings. The suggestion of challenge, resources, supportive and diverse work-group, supervisory encouragement and organizational support provided a sound foundation for latter researches on creativity and innovation management.
Kanter’s work discussed the types, characteristics and conditions of innovation. Her assertions had quoted some concepts from Amabile. She further identified the four major tasks of innovation, namely, idea generation and innovation activation, coalition building, implementation and diffusion, which helped other authors or practitioners construct the innovation management plan. In addition to the facilitation measures she suggested, which somehow align with Amabile’s ideas, Kanter took into consideration the practical side of management and aimed at enhancing the efficiency and productivity of innovation tasks.
Gibb and Waight tried to integrate the previous findings, including Amabile’s assertion of intrinsic motivation, into the HRD. They recognized the negative impact of management in ‘killing’ creativity and their assertion of meaning, strategies and values framework was in fact, an attempt to align creativity and HRD function in a
Creativity is regarded as the major contributor to an organization’s competitiveness. However important creativity is, there has been a general problem in the management of creativity. Amabile (1998) claimed that most management impeded creativity in the name of evaluation, control and productivity. Managers often referred creativity to the imaginative approach people adopt in problem solving but ignored the importance of expertise and motivation. It is especially significant that managers have been placing too much emphasis on extrinsic motivation, mostly money, which in fact not an effective motivator to creativity. The utilization of quantitative survey instrument, KEYS, which consists of 78 questions to measure the work place conditions enhanced the validity of Amabile’s findings. The suggestion of challenge, resources, supportive and diverse work-group, supervisory encouragement and organizational support provided a sound foundation for latter researches on creativity and innovation management.
Kanter’s work discussed the types, characteristics and conditions of innovation. Her assertions had quoted some concepts from Amabile. She further identified the four major tasks of innovation, namely, idea generation and innovation activation, coalition building, implementation and diffusion, which helped other authors or practitioners construct the innovation management plan. In addition to the facilitation measures she suggested, which somehow align with Amabile’s ideas, Kanter took into consideration the practical side of management and aimed at enhancing the efficiency and productivity of innovation tasks.
Gibb and Waight tried to integrate the previous findings, including Amabile’s assertion of intrinsic motivation, into the HRD. They recognized the negative impact of management in ‘killing’ creativity and their assertion of meaning, strategies and values framework was in fact, an attempt to align creativity and HRD function in a
References: Amabile, T. M. 1998, "How to kill creativity", Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 76 Gibb, S & Waight, C 2005, "Connecting HRD and creativity: From Fragmentary Insights to Strategic Significance", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vo. 7, No.2, May 2005 271-286. Kanter, R. M.(1996), "When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations", Knowledge management and organizational design, Ed. Myers, P. S. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Mass Mahmoud-Jouini, S.B. & Charue-Duboc, F (2005). “Enhancing Discontinuous Innovation through Knowledge Combination:The Case of an Exploratory Unit within an Established Automotive Firm” Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7, No.2, May 2005 226 Mclean L, (2005). “Organizational Culture 's Influence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development” Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7, No.2, May 2005 226