Call for Papers

Research on creativity in organizations has soared in scope and quantity in the last few decades. Scholars have thoroughly explored creativity antecedents, creative processes, and the nature of creative work (Harrison, Rouse, Fisher, & Amabile, 2022; Harvey & Berry, 2022). With increased interest, however, came also sparseness. As a result, creativity research is still largely a- temporal and a-contextual. What we mean by this is that, despite individual efforts, we still lack a systematic understanding of how creativity is shaped by time and locations. As creativity is the byproduct of the interaction between creators and the field (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999), a complete understanding of its emergence requires explicitly taking into account the places and times where creativity is produced.
 
Accounting for how places shape creativity does not mean focusing merely on organizational characteristics: it means accounting for the physical elements that individuals are embedded in – their offices and other spaces where creative work actually happens. Despite the obvious importance of understanding the relationship between spaces’ characteristics and creative work (Amabile, 1998), research on the topic is still almost non-existent. The result is that scholars and practitioners alike are still relying on conventional wisdom, such as one-size-fits-all open spaces. Moreover, accounting for spaces also means taking into consideration the country that creators are embedded in – and how its system of values and norms shape not only what is needed in order to be creative, but even the meaning of creativity itself and, consequently, its evaluation (Lowenstein & Mueller, 2016; Yong et al., 2020). For example, while in the West creativity is equated with divergent thinking, Chinese philosophy says striving for originality can actually be counterproductive when it comes to achieving genuinely fresh results, and that true creativity comes from the integration of contrasting aspects.
 
Such dramatic differences in the view of what creativity is and how it should be pursued suggests that “accounting” for culture as a boundary condition for extant theories might not be enough. To use a metaphor, developing meaningful theories of creativity in a globalized world does not just require adapting our glasses to a different light: it requires a completely new set of visual aids. This is true at the transnational level, but also at the intranational level: theories and approaches to creativity that work for knowledge workers in Silicon Valley, for example, might not necessarily apply to rural communities. Adopting this point of view, we could assume that studies on creativity should always be considered culturally specific, thus questioning the generalizability of research evidence in this domain. The opposite perspective, considering globalization and its effects, would instead suggest that there might be creative standards shared all over the world and, consequently, creative rationales or principles that apply to all countries regardless of cultural differences.
 
Similarly, accounting for time means not only looking at how creativity changes over careers, as scholars have recently started to do (e.g., Berg, 2022; Deichmann & Baer, 2022), but also considering how the passing of time might change whether certain ideas are seen as creative and the meaning itself of creativity. For example, the rise of Impressionism was made possible by a significant change in the selection system, with gallerists gaining prominence over other artists (Wijnberg & Gemser, 2000). The transhistorical consistency or inconsistency (Simonton, 1980) of the dominant definition of creativity can shape not only the assessment of creativity, but also the way individuals approach trying to be creative and creative pursuits (Harvey & Berry, 2022).
 
Time is also a resource that plays a role in the creative process, together with other inputs like financial resources, talent, materials, and equipment. The literature shows that time pressure and constraints can both contribute to increasing or deterring creativity (Acar et al., 2019; Baer & Oldham, 2006), and that past deeds shape creators’ ability to come up with new creative ideas (Audia & Goncalo, 2007). However, we still know little about the role of time in collective creativity and collaboration among individuals and organizations, its role in the creative process and its different phases, and how it interacts with other resources. For example, time constraints may be detrimental for the social processes of creativity as collaboration and cross-disciplinary interactions require time.
 
Similarly, the effects of continuity and different types of interruptions (e.g. intrusions, breaks, distractions) during the creative process and their effects on creative outcomes is worthy of further attention (Mochi & Madjar, 2018). Also, it could be of great interest to investigate the role that technology can play in overcoming space (e.g., video chat applications) and time limits (e.g., metaverse).
 
Papers submitted may include, but are not restricted to, the following questions:

• What is the role of space (e.g., offices, outdoors, city planning) in shaping creativity at the individual, team, and organizational level?

• What is the role of time in shaping the way we think about creativity and the way we achieve creative outcomes?

• How does the notion of creativity vary across cultures, and how does that shape the “best way” to be creative at work?

 
This sub-theme aims to contribute to the ever- growing creativity domain, and it welcomes all scholars that are interested in presenting cutting- edge research that explores the role of the temporal, cultural, and/or physical context in shaping creativity and creative processes. Contributors to this sub-theme are encouraged to elaborate and test new theories on the direct effect of these factors in the way we pursue and understand creativity, but also on how well-known creativity precursors might become ineffective or even hinder creativity because of these factors. Rigorous conceptual and empirical research with relevance to organizational settings is called for, and we encourage diverse and juxtaposed theoretical perspectives and methods more broadly on creativity.
 

References

• Acar, O.A., Tarakci, M., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2019): “Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review.” Journal of Management, 45 (1), 96–121.
• Amabile, T.M. (1998): “How to Kill Creativity.” Harvard Business Review, Sep–Oct, 77–87.
• Audia, P.G., & Goncalo, J.A. (2007): “Past success and creativity over time: A study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry.” Management Science, 53 (1), 1–15.
• Berg, J.M. (2022): “One-Hit Wonders versus Hit Makers: Sustaining Success in Creative Industries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 67 (3), 630–673.
• Deichmann, D., & Baer, M. (2022): “A recipe for success? Sustaining creativity among first-time creative producers.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 108 (1), 100–113.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999): “Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity.” In: R.J. Sternberg (ed.): Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 313–338.
• Harrison, S.H., Rouse, E.D., Fisher, C.M., & Amabile, T.M. (2022): “The Turn toward Creative Work.” Academy of Management Collections, 1 (1), 1–15.
• Harvey, S., & Berry, J. (2022): “Toward a Meta-Theory of Creativity Forms: How Novelty and Usefulness Shape Creativity.” Academy of Management Review, 48 (3), 504–529.
• Loewenstein, J., & Mueller, J. (2016): “Implicit Theories of Creative Ideas: How Culture Guides Creativity Assessments.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 2 (4), 320–348.
• Mochi, F., & Madjar, N. (2018): “Interruptions and multitasking: Advantages and disadvantages for creativity at work.” In: R. Reiter-Palmon, V.L. Kennel, & J.C. Kaufman (eds.): Individual Creativity in the Workplace. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 103–127.
• Simonton, D.K. (1980): “Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (6), 972–983.
• Wijnberg, N.M., & Gemser, G. (2000): “Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts.” Organization Science, 11 (3), 323–329.
• Yong, K., Mannucci, P.V., & Lander, M.W. (2020): “Fostering creativity across countries: The moderating effect of cultural bundles on creativity.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 157 (March), 1–45.
•