Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity at Work pp 3–22Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Measuring Creativity at Work

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Creativity at work can be seen as the result of the interaction between individual (cognitive, conative, and affective) and environmental characteristics. Thus, individuals with creative potential will be more or less willing and able to act on this capacity depending on the presence or absence of psychological and environmental factors. The present chapter presents the different individual and environmental factors influencing creativity in organizations. It introduces different tools to assess creative potential and organizational climate for creativity as well as methods to evaluate creative accomplishments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adobe. (2012a). Creativity and education: Why it matters (pp. 1–23). Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_Creativity_and_Education_Why_It_Matters_study.pdf

  • Adobe. (2012b). State of create: Global benchmark study on attitudes and beliefs about creativity at work, school, and home (pp. 1–37). Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201204/042312AdobeGlobalCreativityStudy.html

  • Adobe. (2016). State of create 2016 (pp. 1–50). Adobe. Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/max/pdfs/AdobeStateofCreate_2016_Report_Final.pdf

  • Althuizen, N. (2012). The relative performance of different methods for selecting creative marketing personnel. Marketing Letters, 23(4), 973–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9198-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1994). The team climate inventory: Manual and user’s guide. Windsor, Berkshire: ASE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work innovation: development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (1996). Does artistic creativity decline during elementary school? Psychological Reports, 78, 927–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbot, B., Tan, M., Randi, J., Santa-Donato, G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Essential skills for creative writing: Integrating multiple domain-specific perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benzer, J., & Horner, M. (2015). A meta-analytic integration and test of psychological climate dimensionality. Human Resource Management, 54, 457–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 432–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caroff, X., & Lubart, T. (2012). Multidimensional approach to detecting creative potential in managers. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Himsel, A., Kasof, J., Greenberger, E., & Dmitrieva, J. (2006). Boundless creativity: Evidence for the domain generality of individual differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Dmitrieva, J., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction to “be creative” across domains and cultures. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in drawings of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, D. H. (2006). The role of creativity as a driver of innovation. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 2(January), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIT.2006.262281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behavior. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, S. J., & Shaffran, M. (2005). Note on consensual assessment technique in creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorenbosch, L., Van Engen, M. L., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K., & Kramer, R. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1982). Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00066.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and social psychology review, 2, 290–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galati, F. (2015). Complexity of judgment: What makes possible the convergence of expert and nonexpert ratings in assessing creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.992667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of process and product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 1993–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 347–359). San Diego, CA: Academic press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Dimensions of creative climate: A general taxonomy. Korean Journal of Thinking et Problem Solving, 15, 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., & Friedrich, T. (2012). Hiring an innovative workforce: A necessary yet uniquely challenging endeavor. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM. (2010a). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. Somers: IBM.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM. (2010b). 2010 global CEO study: Creativity selected as most crucial factor for future success. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from https://www03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss

  • IBM. (2012). 2012 global CEO study. Retrieved from https://www-01.ibm.com/marketing/iwm/iwm/web/signup.do?source=csuite-NA&S_PKG=2012CEOStudy

  • Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joussemet, M., & Koestner, R. (1999). Effect of expected rewards on children’s creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 231–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasof, J., Chen, C., Himsel, A., & Greenberger, E. (2007). Values and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment technique. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01316.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Niu, W., Sexton, J. D., & Cole, J. C. (2010). In the eye of the beholder: Differences across ethnicity and gender in evaluating creative work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 496–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment (p. 221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, J., & Linder, S. (2013). With a view to make things better: Individual characteristics and intentions to engage in management innovation. Journal of Management & Governance, 19, 525–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-013-9280-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Lee, J., & Youn, C.-Y. (2005). A variation of CAT for measuring creativity in business products. The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C.-C., & Luh, D.-B. (2012). A comparison of assessment methods and raters in product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2015). Psychologie de la créativité (Vol. 2, p. 186). Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T. I., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1, 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malakate, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2007). Assessing job candidates’ creativity: propositions and future research directions. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. (2000). Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human resource management review, 10, 313–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B. (2002). Different ponds for different fish: A contrasting perspective on team innovation. Applied Psychology, 51, 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 258–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhu, V. P. (2011). Risk-taking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 319–323). New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G. (2006). Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of employee creativity: Evidence from Egyptian organizations. Journal of Business Research, 59, 233–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess: The creative process in art, science, and other fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, A. (2001). Bipolar illness, creativity, and treatment. Psychiatr Q, 72, 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M., & Tripp, S. (2014). The incremental validity of a short form of the ideational behavior scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scratchley, L. S., & Hakstian, A. R. (2001). The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 367–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanko-Kaczmarek, M. (2012). The effect of intrinsic motivation on the affect and evaluation of the creative process among fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 304–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Weisberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, M. (2017). Creativity and innovation: Basic concepts and approaches. In M. Tang & C. H. Werner (Eds.), Handbook of the management of creativity and innovation (pp. 3–32). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813141889_0001

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. A. (1988). Creativity and talent as learning. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 340–361). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills, and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution (p. 167). Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France

    Xavier Caroff, Justine Massu & Todd Lubart

Authors
  1. Xavier Caroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justine Massu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Todd Lubart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

    Lee Martin

  2. Department of Culture, Media & Creative Industries (CMCI), King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Nick Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Caroff, X., Massu, J., Lubart, T. (2018). Measuring Creativity at Work. In: Martin, L., Wilson, N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity at Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77350-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation