Research on creativity in organizations has revealed a variety of important paradoxes that seem fundamental to the nature of creativity itself. One such paradox is the tension between freedom and constraint in the creative process. Where some theorists have described the ideal creative process as unstructured, open-ended, and free of external limitations, others have found that creative individuals and teams can benefit from constraints. The purpose of this study is to make sense of this tension in the literature by investigating the ways in which constraints both inhibit and enhance work team creativity. Based on inductive field research with four research and development teams in a multinational corporation known for innovation, this study addresses the research questions: (a) What are the key constraints experienced by R&D teams and what impact do these have on team creativity?, and (b) Under what conditions do constraints inhibit or enhance R&D team creativity? This research uncovered a variety of salient constraints that can be organized into two broad categories: process constraints and product constraints. While process and product constraints were found to have differential impacts on team creativity, this study also revealed that under different circumstances, these constraints affected team creativity differently. Specifically, enduring team dynamics patterns, characterized as enabling dynamics and disabling dynamics, played a vital role in how teams interpreted and responded to constraints, and therefore whether constraints inhibited or enhanced team creativity. Teams experiencing the right kinds of constraints in the right environments, and which saw opportunity in constraints, benefitted creatively from them. The results of this research challenge the assumption that constraints kill creativity, demonstrating instead that for teams able to accept and embrace them, there is freedom in constraint.
AmabileT. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10 (pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
3.
AmabileT. M.GryskiewiczS. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory (Report No. 30). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
4.
AmabileT. M.ContiR.CoonH.LazenbyJ.HerronM. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
5.
AmabileT.HadleyC.KramerS. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52–61.
6.
AndrewsF. M.FarrisG. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185–200.
7.
AndrewsJ.SmithD. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 174–187.
8.
BaerM.OldhamG. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963–970.
9.
BakerT.NelsonR. N. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.
CameronK.QuinnR. (1998). Organizational paradox and transformation. In QuinnR.CameronK. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Camison-ZornozaC.Lapiedra-AlcamiR.Segarra-CipresM.Boronat-NavarroM. (2004). A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25(3), 331–361.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
15.
DamanpourF. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
16.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
17.
DeRueD. S.RossoB. (2009). Toward a theory of efficient creativity in teams. In NealeM. A.MannixE. A.GoncaloJ. A. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 195–228). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
18.
DrazinR.GlynnM. A.KazanjianR. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.
19.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
20.
EricksenJ.DyerL. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 438–471.
21.
GarudR.KarnoeP. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 277–300.
22.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
GeorgeJ. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In WestM. (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology, 77–93. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
24.
GeorgeJ. M. (2008). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.
25.
GilsonL. L.MathieuJ. E.ShalleyC. E.RuddyT. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.
26.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
27.
GruberH.DavisS. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving systems approach to creativity. In SternbergR. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 243–270). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HargadonA. B.BechkyB. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
29.
HargadonA.SuttonR. I. (1996). Technology brokering and innovation in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
30.
HennesseyB.AmabileT. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.
31.
HoeglM.GemuendenH.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449.
32.
HoeglM.GibbertM.MazurskyD. (2008). Financial constraints in innovation projects: When is less more?Research Policy, 37, 1382–1391.
33.
HoeglM.ParboteeahK. P. (2003). Goal setting and team performance in innovative projects: On the moderating role of teamwork quality. Small Group Research, 3 (1), 3–19.
34.
HoeglM.ParboteeahK. P. (2007). Creativity in innovative projects: How teamwork matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24, 148–166.
35.
IsaksenS. G.EkvallG. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 73–88.
36.
IsaksenS. G.LauerK. J.EkvallG.BritzA. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 171–184.
37.
KatilaR.ShaneS. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative?Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829.
38.
KatzR.AllenT. J. (1988). Organizational issues in the introduction of new technologies. In KatzR. (Ed.), Managing Professionals in Innovative Organizations (pp. 442–456). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
39.
KellyJ. R.McGrathJ. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395–497.
40.
KurtzbergT. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.
41.
KurtzbergT. R.AmabileT. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294.
42.
LeeT. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
LeeT. W.MitchellT. R.SablynskiC. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 161–187.
44.
LoflandJ. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
MayerM. (2006). Creativity loves constraints. Business Week, 13February: 1–2.
47.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
48.
MishinaY.PollockT. G.PoracJ. F. (2004). Are more resources always better for growth? Resource stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1179–1197.
49.
MoneM. A.McKinleyW.BarkerV. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: A contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 115–132.
50.
MoreauC. P.DahlD. W. (2005). Designing the solution: the impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13–22.
51.
OhlyS.SonnentagS.PluntkeF. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279.
52.
OldhamG.CummingsA. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
53.
PaulusP. B.NijstadB. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
SethiR.NicholsonC. Y. (2001). Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 154–168.
55.
ShalleyC. E.GilsonL. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.
56.
ShalleyC. E.ZhouJ.OldhamG. R. (2004). Effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
57.
SingletonR. A.StraitsB. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
58.
SmithK.BergD. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
60.
StokesP. D. (2006). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. London, UK: Springer Publishing.
61.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1992). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
TharpT. (2003). The creative habit: Learn it and use it for life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
63.
WeissM.HoeglM.GibbertM. (2012). Making virtue of necessity: The role of team climate for innovation in resource-constrained innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(S1), 196–207.
64.
WestM. A. (1997). Developing creativity in organizations. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
65.
WestM. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 355–424.
66.
WestM. A.SacramentoC. A. (2012). Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational climate. In MumfordM. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 359–385). London, UK: Academic Press.
67.
YinR. (1994). Case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
68.
ZhouJ.GeorgeJ. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
69.
ZhouJ.ShalleyC. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in personnel and human resource management. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
