Creative leaders promote creative organizations

Reference: Gro Ellen Mathisen, Ståle Einarsen, Reidar Mykletun, (2012) "Creative leaders promote creative organizations", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33 Issue: 4, pp.367-382, https://doi-org.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/10.1108/01437721211243741

Abstract: – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of leaders’ creativity as a predictor of organizational creativity. The authors expected that creative leaders would promote creativity directly by functioning as a model and inspiration for their followers and indirectly by promoting a creativity‐supporting work climate. Significant positive associations were found between leaders’ creative behavior, organizational creative climates, and organizational creative behavior. Mediation analyses revealed that the relationship between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity was mediated by organizational creative climate.

My comments: Interesting to have evidence to support such basic ideas. The core ideas reveal important methodological issues, ways of seeing the problems that are shaped by the quantitative lens, i.e.: "A positive relationship exists between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity". I mean, it's reasonable to test for such positive relationship, but what does that really tell us about the nature and shape of such relationship? Not much. The study was conducted in small Norwegian restaurants, via questionnaires -and it's always interesting to see the criteria and procedure of data collection. They measured the following constructs: "leader personality", "creative work climates", and two outputs: "organizational creative behaviour" and "organizational creative outputs". I find it incredibly frustrating that one of the most crucial aspects is often omitted in these papers, namely: What and how exactly did you ask participants? Here, only two sample items are made explicit: “we generate new ideas or proposals” and “we accomplish our new ideas or proposals”. What the (highly diverse) group of respondents may have interpreted by that is a "black box" as is usually the case in questionnaire-based approaches. Anyway. Perhaps even more problematic, this is how "creative outputs" was measured: "external evaluators were asked to assess the extent to which the restaurant was considered creative according to ten different areas when compared with other similar restaurants"... meaning what the researchers really measured was the perception of a very peculiar group: "employees at public offices for the advisory of employees and apprentices within the hotel and restaurant sector" via another questionnaire (which we also don't get to see). I mean, I do understand the strength of quantitative approaches, but for all the objectivity claimed for this type of studies, it's always remarkable how obscure and ambiguous are some of the core steps. An "overview" of the items used to ask these people how different a restaurant is, includes: interior decoration, menu layout, meal appearance, and children's menu. I mean, as if the entire area of "experience design" didn't exist.

Of course, also based on the methodological tools used, any conclusions formulated by the study (seem quite reasonable, by the way) lack any explanatory power in terms of the causality -it is entirely possible that the type of leadership and the perceived differentiation by public employees are but effects of something else not addressed by the researchers. But yes, this study can be cited as "preliminary support" (words of the authors) of the elementary idea that the disposition of a leader is connected to the performance of the organisation in factors related to originality and creativity.

Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.

Reference: Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

Abstract: This article presents a model for quality in qualitative research that is uniquely expansive, yet flexible, in that it makes distinctions among qualitative research’s means (methods and practices) and its ends. The article first provides a contextualization and rationale for the conceptualization. Then the author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative research including (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence. This eight-point conceptualization offers a useful pedagogical model and provides a common language of qualitative best practices that can be recognized as integral by a variety of audiences. While making a case for these markers of quality, the article leaves space for dialogue, imagination, growth, and improvisation.

Notes: [It's been a while since my last blog post!] I'll keep it short: design research REALLY needs to look at this type of papers where criteria of quality and rigour are discussed across research cultures and disciplines. Design research needs to develop its own criteria. 

A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research

Reference: Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political analysis, 14(3), 227-249.

Abstract: The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.

I found the book version of this paper by the same authors very interesting. Although my main interests or experiences don't include Political Science, the ideas by these authors apply to any disciplinary traditions. The way they dissect the similarities and differences across ways of doing research (cultures) has helped me significantly to shape my collaborations.

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients

The dialectics of serendipity in Management

Reference: Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Lindsay, G. (2015). The dialectics of serendipity. European Management Journal, 33(1), 9-18.

Abstract: Serendipity in organizations has often been perceived as a mysterious occurrence. We approach the process of serendipity via reconsideration of Honda’s entry into the US market using an alternate templates analysis, showing that serendipity can be conceptually interpreted as the synthesis of preparation and openness to novelty, articulated through generative doubt. In this sense, it can be thought of as a dialectical process that thrives through the creative synthesis of the existing and the new. It is a practical accomplishment rather than an organizational form of mystery.

I enjoyed reading this, here's my favourite part: "We asked “how do organizations turn luck into serendipity”, and responded that they do so via the dialectical interplay of preparation, openness, and doubt. Serendipity can thus be defined as unexpected observations framed as opportunities, made actionable by a frame of reference that is kept dynamic via the cultivation of doubt..."

Meta-analysis in design research: role of examples

Reference: Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies,39, 70-99.

Some papers make it straight to my reading list (and this blog) due to their title, venue, and authors. This is a clear example. I'm looking forward to reading this paper for several reasons:
1. Jon Cagan's excellent track record and diverse research interests
2. By itself, interesting to see meta-analyses in the field of design research
3. May be quite useful to see their findings and interpretations of the (I assume) non-obvious influences that precedents play in design processes.

I hope to see some insights here on disciplinary differences, as I know that examples play a hugely different role across design areas, from robotics to architecture, graphic design, games, mechanical design, etc.

The power of feedback

Reference: Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.

Abstract: Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but this impact can be either positive or negative. Its power is frequently mentioned in articles about learning and teaching, but surprisingly few recent studies have systematically investigated its meaning. This article provides a conceptual analysis of feedback and reviews the evidence related to its impact on learning and achievement. This evidence shows that although feedback is among the major influences, the type of feedback and the way it is given can be differentially effective. A model of feedback is then proposed that identifies the particular properties and circumstances that make it effective, and some typically thorny issues are discussed, including the timing of feedback and the effects of positive and negative feedback. Finally, this analysis is used to suggest ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms.

Notes: "Most current assessments provide minimal feedback, too often because they rely on recall and are used as external accountability thermometers rather than as feedback devices that are integral to the teaching and learning process. It is the feedback information and interpretations from assessments, not the numbers or grades, that matter. In too many cases, testing is used as the measure to judge whether change has occurred rather than as a mechanism to further enhance and consolidate learning by teachers or students." 

Cited by 3215

Creativity: The essence of mathematics

Reference: Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236-260.

Abstract: For the gifted mathematics student, early mastery of concepts and skills in the mathematics curriculum usually results in getting more of the same work and/or moving through the curriculum at a faster pace. Testing, grades, and pacing overshadow the essential role of creativity involved in doing mathematics. Talent development requires creative applications in the exploration of mathematics problems. Traditional teaching methods involving demonstration and practice using closed problems with predetermined answers insufficiently prepare students in mathematics. Students leave school with adequate computational skills but lack the ability to apply these skills in meaningful ways. Teaching mathematics without providing for creativity denies all students, especially gifted and talented students, the opportunity to appreciate the beauty of mathematics and fails to provide the gifted student an opportunity to fully develop his or her talents. In this article, a review of literature defines mathematical creativity, develops an understanding of the creative student of mathematics, and discusses the issues and implications for the teaching of mathematics.

Notes: I have heard some University lecturers in Engineering complain that their students "nail it" in the exams, but in the end fail to really comprehend the core ideas, and are unable to apply them later on. Some teachers have gained prominence by incorporating some "active learning" approaches to teaching Mathematics and Physics... but what I have not seen (enough, anyway) is this idea of targeting the creative dimension of mathematics.

Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas

Reference: Licuanan, B. F., Dailey, L. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(1), 1-27.

Abstract: Idea evaluation is a critical aspect of creative thought. However, a number of errors might occur in the evaluation of new ideas. One error commonly observed is the tendency to underestimate the originality of truly novel ideas. In the present study, an attempt was made to assess whether analysis of the process leading to the idea generation and analysis of product originality would act to offset underestimation error in the evaluation of highly original new ideas. Accordingly, 181 undergraduates were asked to evaluate the originality of marketing campaigns being developed by six different teams where the level of idea originality was varied. Manipulations were induced to encourage active analysis of interactional processes and the originality of team products. It was found that active analysis of product originality and appraisal of interactional processes reduced errors in evaluating the originality of highly novel ideas. The implications of these findings for the evaluation of new ideas are discussed.

Notes: There is a clear bias in creativity research to study the production or generation of ideas (can ideas strictly be "generated" or ideas more like energy?), while only a few studies focus on the evaluation or assessment of ideas.

The expatriate-creativity hypothesis

Reference: Fee, A., & Gray, S. J. (2012). The expatriate-creativity hypothesis: A longitudinal field test. Human Relations, 65(12), 1515-1538.

Abstract: While prior research suggests that the cognitive changes triggered by cross-cultural experiences can enhance an individual’s creative-thinking abilities, this is yet to be verified through empirical field research. We draw on schema theory, and the principle of psychological dissonance experienced during cultural adaptation, to argue that expatriates undergo wholesale cognitive changes that can lead to enhanced creative-thinking abilities. We test this hypothesis by measuring changes in the creative-thinking abilities of a sample of expatriates over the first 12 months of their placement. When compared with a control group of non-expatriates, the expatriates showed significant increases in overall creative-thinking abilities and cognitive flexibility, although not originality, elaboration, or ideational fluency.

Notes: TBD