Article Critique and Comparative Analysis of Positive and Negative Creativity in Groups, Institutions, and Organizations: a Model and Theoretical Extensions.
Article Critique and Comparative Analysis of Positive and Negative Creativity in Groups, Institutions, and Organizations: A Model and Theoretical Extensions.
Few would argue that most companies must continually innovate and evolve to stay in business. To maintain this cycle of innovation and change, there must be a level of creativity, that is fostered within the organization. In their article Positive and Negative Creativity in Groups, Institutions, and Organizations: A Model and Theoretical Extensions (hereafter referred to as “the article”), James, Clark, and Cropanzano make several arguments on critical components that increase the amount of positive and negative creativity. There are numerous alternate case studies which we’ll compare and contrast briefly in this critique of the article that go into detail as to what generates or stifles creativity. Although there are several reasons we could discuss, we’ll explore some of the more relatively respected and researched reasons that are specific to having a creative business environment. Specifically, we’ll explore how the work environment, knowledge base, and motivational factors can add to, or diminish ones level of creativity in the workplace
The Work Environment:
The Authors in the article contend that the level of autonomy or control an employee has are directly correlated to the level of creativity the employee is likely to display. Employees that have high levels of autonomy to complete their assignments naturally display higher levels of creativity. There is more than one way of doing many things and left to their own devices, employees will find creative or unconventional means of completing tasks. Conversely, authoritative managers can refocus employee’s creative ideas to other efforts. Employees could feel stifled and become uneasy to cope. A business can fail as they lose their competitive advantage and are unable to change their output to meet an ever changing public demand and
Few would argue that most companies must continually innovate and evolve to stay in business. To maintain this cycle of innovation and change, there must be a level of creativity, that is fostered within the organization. In their article Positive and Negative Creativity in Groups, Institutions, and Organizations: A Model and Theoretical Extensions (hereafter referred to as “the article”), James, Clark, and Cropanzano make several arguments on critical components that increase the amount of positive and negative creativity. There are numerous alternate case studies which we’ll compare and contrast briefly in this critique of the article that go into detail as to what generates or stifles creativity. Although there are several reasons we could discuss, we’ll explore some of the more relatively respected and researched reasons that are specific to having a creative business environment. Specifically, we’ll explore how the work environment, knowledge base, and motivational factors can add to, or diminish ones level of creativity in the workplace
The Work Environment:
The Authors in the article contend that the level of autonomy or control an employee has are directly correlated to the level of creativity the employee is likely to display. Employees that have high levels of autonomy to complete their assignments naturally display higher levels of creativity. There is more than one way of doing many things and left to their own devices, employees will find creative or unconventional means of completing tasks. Conversely, authoritative managers can refocus employee’s creative ideas to other efforts. Employees could feel stifled and become uneasy to cope. A business can fail as they lose their competitive advantage and are unable to change their output to meet an ever changing public demand and