Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2002, 51 (3), 355–424 © Internatio

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2002, 51 (3), 355–424 © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Blackwell Science Ltd Oxford, UK APPS Applied Psychology: an International Review 0269-994X © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002 2002 51 3 000 000 Lead Article Creativity and Innovation Implementation WEST Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups Michael A. West* Aston Business School, University of Aston, and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, UK Cet article présente une synthèse des recherches et théories qui éclairent notre compréhension de la créativité et de la mise en œuvre de l’innovation dans les groupes de travail. Il semble que la créativité apparaisse essentiellement au cours des premières étapes du processus, avant la mise en œuvre. On étudie l’inﬂuence des caractéristiques de la tâche, des capacités et de l’éventail des connaissances du groupe, des demandes externes, des mécanismes d’intégration et de cohérence de groupe. La perception d’une menace, l’incertitude ou de fortes exigences entravent la créativité, mais favorisent l’innovation. La diversité des connaissances et des capacités est un bon prédicteur de l’innovation, mais l’intégration du groupe et les compétences sont indispensables pour récolter les fruits de la diversité. On examine aussi les implications théoriques et pra- tiques de ces considérations. In this article I synthesise research and theory that advance our understanding of creativity and innovation implementation in groups at work. It is suggested that creativity occurs primarily at the early stages of innovation processes with innovation implementation later. The inﬂuences of task characteristics, group knowledge diversity and skill, external demands, integrating group processes and intragroup safety are explored. Creativity, it is proposed, is hindered whereas perceived threat, uncertainty or other high levels of demands aid the implemen- tation of innovation. Diversity of knowledge and skills is a powerful predictor of innovation, but integrating group processes and competencies are needed to enable the fruits of this diversity to be harvested. The implications for theory and practice are also explored. * Address for correspondence: Work and Organizational Psychology, Aston Business School, University of Aston, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. Email: m.a.west@aston.ac.uk I am grateful to the many colleagues with whom I have had conversations that have inﬂuenced my thinking about groups, creativity, and innovation implementation. For commenting on an early draft of this article I thank particularly Nigel Nicholson and Carsten De Dreu, and for their constructive and insightful criticisms, I thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers of this journal. 356 WEST © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002. INTRODUCTION Three themes dominate the writings of researchers investigating creativity and innovation among work teams. The ﬁrst is the importance of the group task and the demands and opportunities it creates for creativity and innova- tion. The second is the theme of diversity in knowledge and skills among team members, which researchers suggest is related to both team creativity and innovation. And the third is the theme of team integration—when team members work in integrated ways to capitalise on their diverse knowledge and skills, researchers believe that both creativity and innovation implementa- tion result. In this paper I argue that what is neglected in the literature and in research designs is a focus on an important fourth element—the extent of external demands, threat or uncertainty and consequent effects upon creativity and innovation implementation in teams. I propose that creativity and innova- tion implementation represent two stages in the innovation process and that external demands have quite opposite effects on each of these stages. I argue that external demands on the team inhibit creativity or idea generation but encourage the implementation of creative ideas—or innovation implementa- tion. This proposition has important implications not only for theory in the area, but also for practice. If we ignore the role of external demands, then our theories are likely to be of limited value in predicting team innovation and creativity, and our interventions in teams to promote these outcomes are likely to founder. Ultimately, applying the principles expounded here will enable teams to avoid the fate of stagnation and aspire realistically towards being sparkling fountains of ideas and innovative change. Whether the context is producing TV programmes, training for war, managing health and illness in hospitals, developing new products in manu- facturing organisations, or providing ﬁnancial services, the use of work groups as a form of work organisation is both ubiquitous and increasing (Guzzo, 1996). Researchers in applied psychology have responded by puzzling over the factors that inﬂuence the effectiveness of work groups or teams, from the shopﬂoor through to top management teams (see for reviews West, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998). Much less energy has been devoted to answering the question “what factors inﬂuence the extent to which teams generate and implement ideas for new and improved products, services, and ways of doing things at work?” Why has so little attention been devoted to understanding the factors that inﬂuence group or team innovation? One reason is the confusion in the literature between the two concepts—team innovation and team creativity. Distinguishing between them more clearly can dissipate this confusion. Creativity can be seen as the ﬁrst stage in the innovation process. Creativity is the development of ideas while innovation implementation is the application CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION 357 © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002. of ideas (e.g. for new and improved products, services, or ways of working) in practice (West, 1997). Aphoristically, creativity is thinking about new things, innovation implementation is about doing new things (West & Rickards, 1999). Innovation can then be deﬁned as encompassing both stages— the development of ideas—creativity; followed by their application—the introduction of new and improved products, services, and ways of doing things at work. Innovation, I shall argue, is therefore a two-component, but essentially non-linear process, encompassing both creativity and innovation implementation. At the outset of the process, creativity dominates, to be superseded later by innovation implementation processes. First I will deﬁne creativity and innovation before considering in more detail the notion that there are two relatively distinct components to the innova- tion process. CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION Creativity encompasses the processes leading to the generation of new and valued ideas. In informal use, innovation concerns those behavioural and social processes whereby individuals, groups, or organisations seek to achieve desired changes, or avoid the penalties of inaction. Innovation is therefore the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things at work. A fuller, more explicit deﬁnition of innovation is “the intentional introduction and application within a job, work team or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures which are new to that job, work team or organization and which are designed to beneﬁt the job, the work team or the organization” (West & Farr, 1990). Innovation is restricted to intentional attempts to bring about beneﬁts from new changes; these might include economic beneﬁts, personal growth, increased satisfaction, improved group cohesiveness, better organisational communication, as well as productivity and economic gains. Various processes and products may be regarded as innovations. They include technological changes such as new products, but may also include new production processes, the introduction of advanced manufacturing technology, or the introduction of new computer support services within an organisation. Administrative changes are also regarded as innovations. New human resource management (HRM) strategies, organisational policies on health and safety, or the introduction of teamwork are all examples of admin- istrative innovations within organisations. Innovation implies novelty, but not necessarily absolute novelty. If teamwork is introduced into a govern- ment department, it is considered to be an innovation if it is new in that government department, irrespective of whether it has been introduced into other government departments. Innovations may vary from those that are relatively minor, to those that are of great signiﬁcance. Some innovations can be introduced in the space of an hour, while others may take several years. 358 WEST © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002. Some innovations are unplanned and emerge by accident. One frequently cited example of an emergent innovation is the Post-It notes developed in 3M by an employee who wanted some system of marking the pages of his hymnal when he sang in his church choir. In contrast, some innovations are planned and managed, requiring enormous amounts of an organisation’s attention and energy to ensure their effective implementation. It is generally assumed by researchers that innovation is not a linear process (see for example, Drazin & Schoonhoven, 1996; Van de Ven, 1986; Van de Ven, Schroeder, Scudder, & Polley, 1986; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkatraman, 1999) and I have proposed elsewhere (West, 1990) that it may be conceived of as cyclical with periods of innovation initiation, imple- mentation, adaptation, and stabilisation. Creativity is likely to be most evident in the early stages of innovation processes or cycles, when those in teams are required to develop or offer ideas in response to uploads/Science et Technologie/ sparkling-fountains-or-stagnant-ponds-an-integrative-model-of-creativity-and-innovation-implementation-in-work-groups.pdf