Critical Factors in Managing Creativity in an SME Global Challenger
Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to examine the creative environment in an enterprise with global reach, an SME global challenger, and to identify factors that are critical to building a sustainable competitive advantage in a high-value technological industry such as clinical research. The creativity preferences and internal environmental profile of BetaNova, an SME from India, is assessed in a post-merger integration (PMI) scenario. Organisational factors related to shaping creative work culture are identified as a first step towards building theory, as this area of management is as yet unexplored.
Design/methodology/approach – As existing research is sparse in this area, the study used an exploratory research followed by a survey of key employees of BetaNova, with the objective of examining the internal creative environment and how its leadership can better realise creativity and innovation synergies. Key levers of creative environment and management are identified, and the impact of an enabling environment on innovation success discussed.
Findings – The current internal creative environmental profile of BetaNova is analysed. The research identifies factors in developing a creative environment and in resolving creativity-related cross-border integration issues. Findings reveal that while cultural settings can affect employees’ creativity, to communication and learning, opportunities may have a greater impact.
Practical implications – The research outcomes identify implications for the leadership of SME global challenger such as BetaNova in PMI scenarios and provide clear signposts to building intercultural creative environments.
KeywordsDynamic Capability Young Firm Creative Idea Sustainable Competitive Advantage Creative People
- Amabile T (1996) Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Churchill G (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73Google Scholar
- Churchill C, Lewis VL (1983) The five stages of small business growth. Harv Bus Rev 61(3):30–50Google Scholar
- Doz Y, Shuen A (1990) From intent to outcome: a process framework for partnerships. INSEAD Working PaperGoogle Scholar
- Ghemawat P, Hout TM (2009) China and India take on the multinationals. Financial Times, February 9Google Scholar
- Lane PJ, Lubatkin M (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strat Manag J 19(5):416–477Google Scholar
- MacKinnon DW (1962) The personality correlates of creativity: a study of American architects. Proc Fourteen Cong Appl Psychol 2:11–39Google Scholar
- Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad Manage Rev 26(1):22–40Google Scholar
- Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Spender JC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Winter special issue):45–62Google Scholar
- Van de Ven AH, Polley D (1992) Learning while innovating. Organ Sci 3(1):32–67Google Scholar