Human Resource Development Review 2013 Loewenberger 422 55

494088
research-article2013
HRD12410.1177/1534484313494088Human Resource Development ReviewLoewenberger
Integrative Literature Review
The Role of HRD in

Stimulating, Supporting,
and Sustaining Creativity
and Innovation
Human Resource Development Review

12(4) 422455
2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484313494088
hrd.sagepub.com
Pauline Loewenberger1
Abstract
Challenging environments call for creativity and innovation, dynamic processes that
depend upon the interaction of the individual with the social and organizational
environment, placing people issues in the foreground. Extant literature suggests a
number of problems. First, the frequent confusion that surrounds what this actually
means in practice. Second, regardless of the potential for all creative idea generation
is not common for most individuals. Finally, successful exploitation of new ideas
must overcome social and organizational barriers in the work environment. All are
problems that HRD is well placed to address. Integration with creativity and innovation
research is essential for HRD to effectively stimulate capability and commitment
across multiple levels of the organizational system. An integrated review of literature
sources supports the suggestion that integration remains in its infancy. This article
proposes a synthesis of extant literature in the field of creativity and innovation with
HRD leading to an exploration of practical implications.
Keywords
HRD, multilevel, synthesis, creativity, innovation, CPS, climate
Introduction
Creativity and innovation have long been recognized as essential to sustainable competitive advantage, added value, and even survival (Williams & Yang, 1999). Currently,
challenging dynamic environments further emphasize the necessity (Gibb & Waight,
2005) to develop innovative solutions, yet capability and commitment are often
1University
of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Corresponding Author:
Pauline Loewenberger, Business School, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.
Email: Pauline.Loewenberger@beds.ac.uk
Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016
423
Loewenberger
lacking in practice (Salaman & Storey, 2002). Indiscriminate and interchangeable use
suggests misunderstanding and confusion so definition is necessary. Increasingly consensus identifies two key elements of both conceptual and operational definitions of
creativity as novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1996; Gardner, 1988; Mumford &
Gustafson, 1988; Stein, 1953). Here creativity is defined as the process of generating
original ideas appropriate for the intended purpose and innovation as the implementation or exploitation of creative ideas (Amabile, 1988, p. 126). For organizations to be
innovative, creative solutions are required. Creativity is the seed of innovation
(Amabile, Coon, Conti, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) and remains important throughout
the innovation process.
Creativity and innovation are complex dynamic fields drawing on multiple disciplines and emphasize the interaction of individual, social and organizational characteristics (Amabile, 1983; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Van de Ven, 1986; Van de Ven &
Rogers, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). This results in increasing attention to the determinants of creative behavior (Amabile, 1996; Amabile etal., 1996;
George & Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Zhou,
1998) and multiple-level research to inform practice.
This places people issues in the foreground in line with academic commentary that
draws attention to the intangible aspects of organization, indicating the need for investment in human capital in pursuit of effectiveness, renewal, and transformation. HRD
is also a dynamic field drawing on multiple disciplines and requiring multilevel considerations in the development of holistic theoretical approaches. It has been suggested
that HRD, as a discipline and a profession seeks to identify, support, and lead the
creative revolutions of the 21st century workforce and workplace. (Gibb & Waight,
2005, p. 271). From the perspective of the development of professional practice HRD
is constituted by planned interventions in organizational and individual learning
(Stewart, 2007, p. 66) to support changing behavior. Research identifies important
determinants of creativity and innovation but there is little evidence of how this might
inform practice. Here the aim is to forge better links with extant literature to provide
the credibility necessary to reliably inform HRD practice. Strategic HRD is increasingly recognized as pivotal to alignment in supporting organizational transformation
and change (Alagaraja, 2013; Chermack & Swanson, 2008; Garavan, 2007) and is
well placed to stimulate, support, and sustain creativity and innovation.
This contribution synthesizes influential contributions with HRD through a consideration of relevant individual knowledge, skills, and abilities that might be supported
by HRD interventions, and supportive organizational climate which HRD is well
placed to address through intervention in personal, professional, and organizational
development. The aim of this article is to make a comparison between literature that
attempts to link HRD with creativity and innovation to extant literature in the field and
is extended through an exploration of the implications for HRD.
Extant literature suggests three main problems in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining creative and innovative behavior. Two relate to climate for creativity and innovation, a more malleable subset of organizational culture, which HRD as an agent for
424
Human Resource Development Review 12(4)
culture development is well placed to address (Schein, 1999, 2004) to stimulate and
support the process, the other to individual learning and creative skill development. It
is suggested here that HRD is well placed to address each of these problems in developing capability and commitment to creative and innovative behavior.
First, evidence suggests a lack of understanding among managers as to what it
means in practice to be creative and innovative and how this might be achieved
(Loewenberger, 2009; Storey, 2000). Ambiguities among management are likely to be
more widespread among other organizational actors. Recent evidence points toward
the significance of creative requirement (Unsworth & Clegg, 2010; Unsworth, Wall, &
Carter, 2002) across multiple levels for organizational actors to engage in creative
action. Central to this an awareness of what this means in practice, and of the desirability, importance, and value placed on creativity and innovation in the organization.
There might be a need to overcome historical association of creativity only with aesthetics or individual eminence. Simply, in the absence of shared meaning among
employees of the desirability of creative action in their work roles engagement in the
creativity process is unlikely.
Second, the prevailing view suggests all individuals have the potential to be creative across all roles, levels, and functions (Madjar, 2005; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt,
2002), yet creative idea generation is not common for most individuals (Egan, 2005).
Personality represents an important influence on individual creativity and innovation
(Barron & Harrington, 1981; McCrae, 1987; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Weisberg,
2006) and evidence of more innately creative individuals in typically creative roles
and functions, for instance, research and development, design or marketing, is clear.
The problem lies in developing the potential of the majority of individuals who are less
innately creative so as to release the untapped potential of the entire workforce. This
presents the need to overcome cognitive blocks (Weisberg, 2006) and illusions
(Kahneman, 2011) where patterning systems and false assumptions encourage reproductive thinking as a result of conditioning through socialization and education that
have traditionally favored rationality and logic over creativity and innovation. Similar
to the role of gymnasiums in the development and maintenance of physical fitness
through a range of training programs there is a need for training in creative thinking
skills (e.g., Puccio, Firestien, Coyle, & Masucci, 2006). Brainstorming, probably the
most well-known technique for idea generation, is also the most criticized in the popular press, yet is well supported in the academic literature (e.g., Boddy, 2012; Chen,
Marsden, & Zhang, 2012; Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011; Putman & Paulus, 2009;
Zainol, Yusof, Mastor, Sanusi, & Ramli, 2012). Numerous alternative creativity training programs have evolved in the demand to enhance organizational innovation.
Individual creativity is not something that occurs in a vacuum. It is context dependent
and involves complex interactions of the individual with the social and organizational
environments. This leads to the final of the problems suggested here.
Third, successful exploitation of new ideas must overcome social and organizational barriers in the work environment (Amabile, 1996; Woodman etal., 1993).
Creativity and innovation challenge established order and stability and might be
425
Loewenberger
perceived as undesirable by members of established organizations that operate on the

basis of routines and standardization, reinforced by power and status systems. Barriers
might include perceived risk, lack of understanding of what this means, how to generate and implement creative ideas, manage the creativity and innovation processes, and
overcome competing expectations, strategies, rationales, institutionalized routines,
and inertia (Storey, 2000).
Effective management of responsive and dynamic interactions between intrapersonal psychological factors and interpersonal, social, and organizational factors in the
work environment demands intervention at multiple levels (Mumford, 2000).
Woodman etal. (1993) suggest individual creativity is the multiplicative function of
past experience, cognitive style and ability, personality, relevant knowledge, intrinsic
motivation, social, and contextual influences. Group creativity mediates individual
creativity and is influenced by group composition and diversity, group characteristics,
processes and contextual influences (Woodman etal., 1993). Organizational creativity
is a function of the outputs of component groups and contextual influences, including,
for example, structure, culture, climate, resources, reward systems, and the external
environment. Social and organizational environments present potential barriers to the
generation and implementation of creative ideas by nurturing established patterns of
thinking that reject or inhibit creativity, innovation, and change (Ford, 1996; Kanter,
1988; Salaman & Storey, 2002; Storey, 2000). Interactional models provide a framework for the integration of individual, group and organizational characteristics and
behaviors occurring at each level (Amabile etal., 1996; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; Sternberg, OHara, & Lubart, 1997; Woodman etal., 1993)
suggesting the need for convergence of multiple components for creativity to occur.
Interactional perspectives emphasize that creativity and innovation represent multifaceted and interrelated processes that depend upon the interaction of the individual
with the social and organizational environment. At the heart of interactional models is
climate, the aggregate of individual psychological perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures that influence behavior (e.g., Amabile etal., 1996;
Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Ekvall, 1996; Hennessey & Amabile,
2010; Isaksen, 2007; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999; Woodman etal.,
1993) and that operates at an accessible level conducive to improvement. Climate
models are valuable in drawing attention to dimensions of the work environment demonstrated as important to stimulating, supporting and sustaining creativity and innovation. Diagnostic assessment of climate using psychometrically validated measures
(e.g., Amabile, Burnside, & Gryskiewicz, 1999; Ekvall, Arvonen, & WaldenstromLindblad, 1983; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999) offers powerful insight of supportive and
inhibitive factors at group and organizational levels that provides potential for organizational transformation, subject to understanding of the language of the specialism
(Kahneman, 2011). Considerable overlap between two of the most influential contributions (Amabile, 1996; Isaksen, 2007; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999) provides evidence for
social and organizational factors identified as supporting or inhibiting creativity and
innovation (see Figure 1) in the work environment. These are organized to show similarity between these influential contributions. Factors that inhibit creativity and
426
Idea
Support
Trust/
Openness
Organisaonal
Encouragement
Risk
Taking
ORGANISATIONAL
CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION
Sufficient
Resources
Idea
Time
Supervisory
Encouragement
Autonomy/
Freedom
(lack of)
Workload
Pressure
Play/
Humour
Work Group
Support
Challenging
Work
Debate
(lack of)
Organisaonal
Impediments
(lack of)
Conflict
Challenge
Figure 1. Climate factors supporting creativity and innovation: Based on Amabile, 1996
(inner radial) and Isaksen, 2007 (outer radial).
innovation include excessive work load pressure, organizational impediments, and

conflict. These are shown as lack of so that all factors as illustrated in this figure are
supportive.
Differences are also apparent. For example, Isaksens (2007) model specifically
includes idea time, playfulness, and humor and separates conflict. Amabiles (1996) is
the only model to include a work load pressure dimension. Amabiles (1997) later
research on a single large organization suggests the particular significance of five of
the eight components: Challenging Work, Organizational Encouragement, Work
Group Support, Supervisory Encouragement, and Organizational Impediments.
The perspective of this article is complementary to influential contributions examining personal and contextual antecedents to creativity that integrate reviews of
research within a framework of multiple levels of analysis (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham,
2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). While such reviews are valuable in identifying
427
Loewenberger
numerous factors at each level there is a need for empirical investigation of dynamic
interactions between personal and contextual characteristics and among the different
contextual characteristics (Shalley etal., 2004). However, research at multiple levels
of analysis is complex and difficult such that empirical evidence is lacking. Research
has tended to focus on limited factors or variables in isolation rather than adopting a
more systemic approach to take into account the main components of the interactionist
perspectives. Fragmentation of existing research leads to ambiguous evidence with a
danger of spurious relationships or confounding of factors that is inadequate to advance
theoretical understanding and inform practice (Loewenberger, 2009). While climate
models at this point in time do not claim to include absolutely all influencing factors
they are important in representing psychometrically validated measures of factors
deemed important to supporting or inhibiting creativity and innovation. Considerable
overlap between influential models (see Figure 1) further reinforces the potential contribution and interaction of factors demonstrated as important at each level. Climate
models highlight the multiplicative interaction of stimulants and obstacles underpinned by intrinsic motivation yet rarely are these employed for empirical investigation of social and organizational factors. Recent investigation of the interaction of
climate with personality characteristics, as influential determinants (Loewenberger,
2009), partially supports those components of climate suggested as most supportive
(Amabile, 1997) and also provides evidence for the contribution of the Openness to
Experience (McCrae, 1987; McCrae & Costa, 1997) dimension of personality with
climate factors. The significance of this personality characteristic to creativity is usually limited to the contribution of those high on this dimension (Madjar etal., 2002;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). In
direct contrast findings suggest the need for differential environmental support dependent upon creativity relevant characteristics such that individuals who are more open
are independent creators with lesser need for organizational support. This supports
others suggestions that individual characteristics such as personality and cognitive
style interact differentially with contextual factors (Shalley etal., 2004).
The significance of organizational climate implies the need for alignment between
a specific set of organizational policies, procedures, and practices with a specific type
of organizational climate (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins,
2003). The criterion validity of organizational climate models is dependent on the
alignment of the strategic focus of the climate with a strategic goal of the organization
and for an HR system to influence the achievement of that particular organizational
objective, the system needs to be constructed surrounding that objective (Lepak, Liao,
Chung, & Harden, 2006). Again, this reiterates the role of SHRD as well placed to
stimulate, support, and sustain creativity and innovation.
In summary, influential contributions identified from extant research in the field of
creativity and innovation research are important in identifying significant factors at
each of the multiple levels of the organizational system. This contribution synthesizes
influential contributions with HRD through a consideration of relevant individual
knowledge, skills, and abilities that might be supported by HRD interventions, and supportive organizational climate which HRD is well placed to address through
428
intervention in personal, professional, and organizational development but which has

been impeded to date through limited integration. The aim of this article is to make a
comparison between literature that attempts to link HRD with creativity and innovation
to extant literature in the field of creativity and innovation, outlined in this introduction
and extended through an exploration of the implications for HRD practice in the indepth discussion of the findings. This is achieved through an integrated literature review
to inform the implications for practice of synthesis to answer the question of how HRD
might effectively develop capability and commitment to stimulate, support, and sustain
creativity and innovation at multiple levels of the organizational system.
Method
The aims of this article are achieved through an integrated literature review of contributions that explicitly link HRD with creativity and innovation for comparison with
influential contributions in the field of creativity and innovation research, and leading
to an informed theoretical synthesis useful to professional practitioners. Integrated
literature reviews are differentiated from conceptual reviews by a specific focus on a
topical area and the presence of a methodology (Callahan, 2010). The complexities
and difficulties of conducting multilevel empirical investigation frequently result in a
focus on individual issues or the larger system rather than on interactions, and theorizing holistically concurrently is advocated as a realistic approach (Upton & Egan,
2010). The approach here fits precisely neither with mature or new categories of such
approaches. A relatively mature body of literature in the field of creativity and innovation is used as the basis of comparison with literature that attempts integration with
HRD. Yet integration of creativity and innovation research with HRD remains in its
infancy and is closer to the new category of integrated review through holistic conceptualization of literature at this point in time (Torraco, 2005). The breadth and depth of
such insights create a better understanding of the topic through synthesis of different
streams of research in emphasizing how HRD might address such problems.
Callahan (2010) suggests the hallmark of a good integrative literature review is a
methodology that is reported at appropriate levels of detail so as to be sufficiently
meaningful. Utilizing the University of Bedfordshires digital library resources, the
research was conducted by the author of this article between 6th and 10th May, 2012.
The EBSCO Research Database was used to access two subject specific databases:
Academic Search Elite and Business Source Premier; and Psychinfo, due to the crossdisciplinary nature of this investigation. The first keyword search combined creativity and human resource development and the second innovation with human
resource development, limiting results to scholarly, peer-reviewed journals and to
articles published since January 2000. Integration of creativity and innovation with
human resource development remains in its infancy and limiting this review to contributions over the past decade is essential to address previous lack of integration.
This resulted in a total of 280 articles for creativity and 1,190 for innovation.
While there was some duplication of search results, it is interesting that, based on
abstracts, more appropriate contributions resulted from the creativity search. This is
429
Loewenberger
to be expected given the focus of this article on front end development of creative and
innovative capability and commitment. Separate searches were undertaken using identical keyword combinations using the Sage Premier database. This resulted in 481
scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for creativity and 952 for innovation. As this
database incorporates many scholarly, peer-reviewed journals in the field of HRD,
keyword searches were limited to the abstracts rather than the full text of the article to
ensure inclusion of only directly relevant contributions. As with the EBSCO searches
this is indicative of the interchangeable use of these terms and the more popular use of
innovation.
A large proportion of sources identified as appropriate for inclusion in the integrated
literature review resulted from limitation of all keyword searches to abstracts. However,
to ensure valuable contributions were not missed, the full results of all searches were
reviewed electronically for relevance and potential for inclusion in this review. The first
stage of the selection process started by reading abstracts leading to a reduced sample
of approximately 70 articles with potential to contribute to the current review. The next
stage of the process involved an in-depth review of these full articles for potential relevance. While some subjectivity is unavoidable the selection criteria used to exclude
irrelevant contributions were that the main focus of the articles was on:
Fragmented factors or variables in isolation as these do little to inform professional practitioners.
Individual career development.
Teaching in educational institutions as the factors are very different to supporting organizational creativity.
The role of technology in creativity and innovation is beyond the scope of this
article.
Macro level perspectives (e.g., economic; open innovation) that are, again,
beyond the scope of this article.
The criteria of contributions for inclusion in the integrated literature review were that
the main focus of the articles was as follows:
Business, work or organizational creativity and innovation.

Internal factors at a micro level.
Stimulating, supporting, and sustaining creative/innovative behavior.
Creative idea generation in work organizations.
Creative leadership, Human resource development.
Culture and/or climate for creativity and innovation.
Development of a structured methodology.
Meaningful and useful to professional practitioners.
This was supplemented with a small sample from the researchers Endnote database of
sources based on expertise and experience progressively developed during and subsequent to the process of undertaking doctoral research. These are sources that
430
contribute directly to the integration of creativity and innovation with HRD but where
this is not explicitly referred to. For example, some influential contributors refer
broadly to managing people (e.g., Mumford, 2000; Shipton, Fay, West, Patterson, &
Birdi, 2005). Others (e.g., Jorgensen, Laugen, & Boer, 2007) refer to HRM and continuous improvement or to entrepreneurship and human capital (Martins, Martins,
Pereira, & McCabe, 2010). This results in a total data set of 29 sources (appendix A).
Discussion
This article aims to compare literature that attempts to link HRD with creativity and
innovation to extant literature in the field and to consider the implications for HRD
practice of synthesis to answer the question of how HRD might effectively develop
capability and commitment to stimulate, support, and sustain creativity and innovation. The introduction to this article highlights the need for multiple-level intervention
and focuses on three problems identified through extant literature in the field that
HRD is well placed to address. Simply, how can creative idea generation be stimulated, what does it means in practice to be creative and innovative and how to develop
a supportive work environment? Rather than critique each of the contributions independently here this is dealt with in appendix A. Starting with an outline of findings
from the integrative review it is more effective to demonstrate the role of HRD through
synthesis with influential contributions from creativity and innovation research, structured around the problems identified by extant literature. The approach adopted here
concurs with the suggestion that realistic practical application must focus on individual and organizational development (Upton & Egan, 2010). Synthesis starts at the
level of the individual with a focus on creative thinking skills, before progressing to
social and organizational influences of climate and meaning. In so doing, the contributions and limitations of sources identified for inclusion in this integrated literature
review will be incorporated as appropriate.
Linking HRD With Creativity and Innovation

From the perspective of classic epistemology (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) it is suggested
that creativity and innovation research tends to draw on functionalism or interpretivism, both of which are concerned with regulation and order (Drazin, Glynn, &
Kazanjian, 1999; Taylor & Callahan, 2005). Immediately this appears to be at odds
with the need for integration of creativity and innovation with SHRD both of which
are concerned with transformation and change. The perspective taken here concurs
with others who disagree with the incommensurability of the paradigms and question
the perceived mutual exclusivity of differential philosophical underpinnings. For
example, each of the 4I processes framework of organizational learning as a multilevel
phenomenon (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999)intuiting,
interpreting (individual), interpreting and integrating (group), integrating institutionalizing (organization)makes different assumptions about organizations and society
and operates within and across classic paradigms to demand an ontology and
431
Loewenberger
epistemology that transcends classic paradigms (Crossan, Maurer, & White, 2011).
The perspective here concurs with such suggestions as essential to informing, advancing, and interpreting theory such that it is useful in informing professional practitioners how this might be achieved in practice. This is not disputing the value of
differential philosophical underpinnings necessary to the academic community but
insufficient in the absence of practical interpretation (Loewenberger, 2013).
Undoubtedly, disintegration is apparent between HRD and creativity (Gibb &
Waight, 2005). Influential contributions focus on HRM, leadership or organizational
behavior more generally. For example, Shipton etal. (2005) and Shipton, West,
Dawson, Birdi, & Patterson, 2006) suggest that effective HRM systems incorporating
sophisticated approaches to recruitment and selection, induction, appraisal, and training predict organizational innovation, and that innovation is enhanced where there is a
supportive climate. Jorgensen etal. (2007) demonstrate that HRM has a significant
effect on innovative behavior and company performance, with the strongest relationship between HRM, innovation, and performance occurring when companies align
their continuous innovation activities with their strategic objectives and use systems,
procedures, and processes to measure the resultsindirect but important implications
for SHRD. Other sources focus directly on HRD (e.g., Egan, 2005; Gibb & Waight,
2005; McLean, 2005) and more recently on the nexus between human capital, the
expertise of knowledge workers, entrepreneurship, learning, creativity, and innovation
(Bornay-Barrachina, De la Rosa-Navarro, Lpez-Cabrales, & Valle-Cabrera, 2011;
Martins etal., 2010).
Almost one third of the sources included in the data set for the integrative literature
review made reference to leadership in their titles. This is misleading and it is suggested that HRD represents the missing link in how to achieve this in practice through
effective stimulation and support of creativity and innovation at multiple levels of the
organizational system such that it is sustainable. Simply, for shared meaning and
understanding of creative requirement to cascade across all workers, these must initially be developed among managers.
Surprisingly, given the problems highlighted by extant literature in the field of creativity and innovation, only one of the sources making links with HRD focuses explicitly on the dynamic interaction between individual development of creative thinking
skills and a supportive climate (Williams & Foti, 2011). The closing comments to a
recent special edition appropriately subtitled Weve only just begun (Waples,
Friedrich, & Shelton, 2011), suggests a paucity of literature exploring the kinds of
interventions that may assist in developing leaders of creative efforts and concluding
with a four-step proposition: (a) finding employees with creative capacities or skills,
(b) engaging in a variety of developmental activities, (c) motivating to innovate, and
(d) championing creative ideas and endeavors. Similarities are evident with problems
identified by extant literature in the field of creativity and innovation. For instance
(a) and (b) are concerned with the individual yet fail to differentiate between recruiting
highly creative individuals and developing creative thinking skills for those less innately
creative. On the other hand (c) and (d) relate to organizational climate and creative
432
leadership yet fail to extend to an in-depth consideration of factors identified by influential climate models (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999; Isaksen, 2007).
Disintegration and limitations of individual articles included in this integrative
review are ineffective in directly addressing the aims of this article in informing HRD
practice. Greater clarity is called for in addressing the implications for HRD practitioners in how the necessary capability and commitment might be developed. Starting at
the individual level of analysis the discussion now turns to the first of the problems
highlighted by extant literature, how can creative idea generation be stimulated?
How Might HRD Effectively Stimulate Creative Idea Generation?

Creative thinking operates at the level of individual ability or skill and draws on
knowledge and expertise. While this might be positively or negatively influenced by
social and organizational factors, environmental support in the absence of the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities is unlikely to lead to the generation of useful new
ideas as evident from Egans (2005) observation that creative idea generation is
uncommon for most individuals. Waples etal. (2011) suggestion of the need to find
employees with creative capacities or skills relates to the well-documented importance
of personality characteristics (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981) to individuals success
or failure to develop new ideas or to translate ideas into action (Mumford & Gustafson,
1988). Positive correlations are suggested (Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1991)
between two major personality models highlighted in a recent review of quantitative
empirical research examining influences on individual creativity in the workplace
(Egan, 2005), the Openness dimension of the Five-Factor Model (Costa & McCrae,
1985) and Goughs (1979) Creative Personality Scale. Individuals high on Openness
are suggested as imaginative, intellectually curious, cultured, original, broad-minded,
and artistically sensitive. Competing agendas of the creativity and innovation processes add further complexity in highlighting different characteristics for generating
ideas of value (creativity) and implementation of those ideas (innovation), implying
that the creative individual can operate at both polarities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p.
76), for example, playfulness versus discipline or passion versus objectivity. However,
on balance, while evidence supports the significance of personality to creativity an
important consideration here must be how might this be useful to HRD? Personality
might be important from an HRM perspective in recruiting innately creative individuals for more traditionally creative functions. Yet this also raises the question of whether
there is a need to select large numbers of highly creative individuals who can be exceptionally difficult to manage.
In respect of HRD of greater relevance are cognitive perspectives (Weisberg, 2006)
that suggest creative individuals are able to make connections among ideas that less
creative individuals do not (Poincar, 1913; Wallas, 1926), and which remain influential today. There is also evidence of significant associations between Openness and
creative problem solving training (Loewenberger, 2009) that might be interpreted as
creativity training being valued in companies that attract individuals high on Openness?
However, alternative interpretations are possible that question the basis of this
433
Loewenberger
association? Tentative links are suggested with Lohmans (2010) integrative literature
review on dogmatism and Maurers (2002) associations with employee learning and
development. More open individuals are not only more flexible in absorbing information and combining new and unrelated information but also have a greater need to seek
out unfamiliar situations that allow access to new experiences (McCrae & Costa,
1997), hunger for knowledge creating valuable reserves on which their intellectual
curiosity might draw. Broad experiences increase the pool of resources on which to
draw for creative idea generation (e.g., Shipton etal., 2005, 2006). As more ideas or
other stimuli simultaneously activate, greater potential exists for contact between previously unrelated ideasas a catalyst for creativity and innovation. This is important
for creativity in two ways: first, a wide attention span raises awareness of problem
opportunities and second, increases the potential for the generation of new ideas.
Implications for HRD include value in membership of professional associations, conference attendance and networking in increasing the pools of knowledge and experiences. Similarly, work life balance initiatives are likely to be significant in creating
opportunities to pursue a wide range of developmental interests.
In summary, it is argued that a focus on personality characteristics is of limited
relevance beyond recruitment and selection for more traditionally creative functions.
Of far greater direct relevance to HRD is the prevalent perspective that all have the
potential to be more creative to a greater or lesser degree across all roles, functions,
and hierarchical level or status. Observations that creative idea generation is not common for most individuals (Egan, 2005) suggests a need for awareness of cognitive
blocks (Weisberg, 2006) and an understanding of how these might be overcome in
stimulating creative idea generation.
Creativity training programs tend to be regarded within the cognitive approach to
the creativity process (Weisberg, 2006) providing they are robust and draw on cognitive problem solving perspectives. Others have been criticized as pragmatic approaches
to the commercialization of creativity by those primarily interested in developing creativity and only secondarily to understanding it and almost not at all testing the validity of their ideas about it (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). However, this is, of course,
entirely dependent upon the type and relevance of training, the trainers professionalism and facilitation skills, their understanding of cognitive blocks and the creativity
process. Vast numbers of creativity training programs exist ranging from the artistic
and aesthetic (e.g., Gibb, 2004) perspectives which might use theatre, drama, dance,
art or improvization techniques, for example, to enhance creativity. Drawing on the
framework of a more traditional action learning perspective (Cho & Egan, 2009) an
awareness of antecedents and the creativity process is critical to the outcomes.
The focus of this article is on integration of creativity and innovation with HRD
using a structured methodology that is useful to professional practitioners in enhancing creativity and innovation throughout the work organization. From this perspective
it is suggested that training in creative thinking skills represents an entirely feasible
and effective method toward this aim. Further, from this perspective, creative thinking
becomes embedded within the organization through the development of individuals
repertoire of skills. Of the sources reviewed only Williams and Foti (2011) address
434
creative thinking albeit limited to principles of divergent and convergent thinking.

Some of the more influential approaches to training in creative thinking skills include
productive thinking (Hurson, 2008; Wertheimer, 1982), Clear Ideas (Birdi, 2012),
TRIZ (www.triz.co.uk) and creative problem solving (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger,
2010; Osborn, 1957; Parnes, 1976; Proctor, 2010; VanGundy, 1988) using structured
techniques to overcome cognitive blocks. Most of these approaches to creativity training are based on or adapted from the Osborn-Parnes creative problem solving model.
Substantial evidence exists in support of Osborn-Parnes creative problem solving
model used extensively with the Centre for Studies in Creativity, at Buffalo, New York
and evidence is growing for the positive impact of the more scientific approaches to
creative problem solving (Balestra, 1997; Basadur, 1993; Birdi, 2003; Isaksen &
Treffinger, 2004; Puccio, Firestien, Coyle, & Masucci, 2006; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford,
2004a, 2004b; Vehar, 1994). The Osborn Parnes model is useful as a training program
in emphasizing the need for divergent and convergent thinking at each of the stages of
the CPS process, and is sufficiently flexible to incorporate structured techniques at
each of the stages (Puccio etal., 2006):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mess finding: Search for challenges and opportunities.

Data finding: Gather information about the problem.
Problem finding: Redefining the problem.
Idea finding: Generate as many ideas as possible.
Solution finding: Generate evaluation criteria, improve the ideas and select the
best.
6. Acceptance finding: Social validation and gaining acceptance.
While, stages 1, 2, 5, and 6 are common to most problem solving models of greatest
significance to creative thinking are stages 3 and 4 which emphasize the need for problem redefinition and idea generation as discrete stages. Useful techniques for problem
redefinition might include Boundary Examination (De Bono in VanGundy, 1988) or 5
Ws and H (Kipling in VanGundy, 1988). At the idea generation stage there are a vast
number of techniques including various forms of brainstorming, forced analogy/metaphor, wildest idea, role plays, greetings cards, synectics (VanGundy, 1988), Lotus
Blossom (Michalko, 2006) and Six Thinking Hats (De Bono in Van Gundy, 1988) to
name but a few. An important consideration is that at the idea generation stage the
outcomes should be raw ideas, rather than solutions, which can be developed later. The
distinction between creative problem solving and brainstorming is an important one.
Brainstorming is only one of many structured techniques for use at the idea generation
stage (Stage 4) and is frequently misunderstood (Osborn, 1957) in the absence of an
awareness of the underlying principles of quantity breeds quality, and deferred judgment (Boddy, 2012; Heslin, 2009; Osborn, 2004; Paulus etal., 2011; Putman & Paulus,
2009; Zainol etal., 2012).
HRD professionals new to the CPS process might find the Osborn Parnes model
useful as a training program using structured techniques to develop creative thinking
skills (Proctor, 2010; Puccio etal., 2006; VanGundy, 1988). This contributes to
435
Loewenberger
personal and professional development with potential for organizational revitalization

and transformation, embedded in a supportive climate. Creative thinking also presents
an opportunity to have fun at work with positive cognitive and affective implications
including (a) Incongruity resolved through juxtaposition of different ideas, perspectives, and frames. (b) A nonevaluative playful attitude. (c) Heightened attention and
cognitive processing with shifts and new connections. (d) Positive pleasurable affect
from surprise, satisfaction, and stimulation (Wood, Beckmann, & Rossiter, 2011).
In summary, while evidence of creative personality is useful to HRM in recruitment
and selection, for example, prevalent perspectives emphasize that everyone has the
potential to be more creative, emphasizing cognitive perspectives. HRD is well placed
to stimulate creative idea generation using various creative thinking programs. The
use of structured techniques, for example, within the framework of the creative problems solving process has been explored in-depth as a means to develop the untapped
potential of human capital. As this is useful as a training program it might be first used
in leadership development and disseminated from there. As this becomes embedded
into the organization it is likely to become part of the repertoire of skills leading to the
generation of creative ideas. This leads directly to the need for support for idea generation and implementation at the level of social and organizational factors.
What Does It Mean in Practice? Strategic Alignment of Meaning and

Understanding
The remaining two problems identified by extant literature in the field of creativity
and innovation are at the level of social and organizational support and comprise a lack
of understanding of shared meaning and vision of what this means in practice and the
need for a supportive work environment. It is suggested that Lepak etal.s (2006)
HRM systems model is equally relevant to HRD. HR systems are espoused to be internally consistent and reinforcing to achieve some overarching resultshere creativity
and innovationin developing capability and commitment through a supportive climate that enhances performance. This article extends conceptions of HR systems for
strategic objectives to a climate capable and committed to stimulating, supporting, and
sustaining creativity and innovation informed by influential contributors. Strategic
alignment of interventions at multiple levels is significant given the suggestion that,
whilst attaching importance to innovation, organizations fail to consistently translate
this importance into coherent HR policies (Mumford, 2000; Searle & Ball, 2003).
Yetall too often strategic significance and alignment are not realized in practice and
fragmentation still exists.
Ambiguities and uncertainties of what this means in practice need to be overcome
if capability and commitment are to be realized. This involves far more than universal
awareness of 21st century rhetoric and random brainstorming sessions. For management, meaning is determined by an interaction of the dynamic external environment
with organizational culture, vision, and strategy that leads to a perceived need to adapt
based on intrapersonal beliefs, values and assumptions. How important is creativity
and innovation? Are these processes at the heart of the organizations mission and
436
strategy, or peripheral? In what way(s) does the organization aspire to be creative and
innovative? Vision and strategy are highlighted as a direct influence on creativity and
innovation by one of the articles included in this review (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011).
Storeys (2000) suggestion of extensive differences between managers in the same
company about the actual meaning of the injunction to be innovative might lead to
problems in successful exploitation of new ideas through having to overcome competing expectations, strategies, and rationales. Differences between management and
employees suggest a lack of shared vision, meaning, understanding (Loewenberger,
2009; Salaman & Storey, 2002; Storey, 2000) and creative requirement (Unsworth &
Clegg, 2010; Unsworth etal., 2002). A lack of shared understanding and meaning
among managers presents problems in communicating clear and coherent aspirations
to the workforce. Simply, all too frequently organizational aspirations are not well
communicated among employees such that the relevance to individual behavior is not
made clear. This might be achieved in any number of ways by continuous reinforcement through communication, involvement and participation processes from recruitment, selection, and induction through to performance management. Shared meaning
might also usefully be communicated through various forms of electronic media
within the organization.
Drawing on Taylor and Callahans (2005) critique of underlying assumptions that
influence organizational creativity, Gibb and Waight (2005) suggest potential organizational bias of the dominant value systems are central to organizational development.
Directly related to this is recognition of the need for development of people to be
integrated with organizational development (Hassan, 2007). Synthesis with HRD
starts with strategic objectives through senior management vision, values, and mindset, which determine the extent to which such processes are desired, expected, valued,
and the priority given. Performance is dependent on effective employee involvement
and communication of strategic objectives, meaning and shared perceptions, and is
central to creative requirement (Shalley etal., 2000; Unsworth etal. 2002; Unsworth
& Clegg, 2010). Egans (2005) review of factors influencing individual creativity
includes self-perception, drawing on the work of Tierney and Farmer (2002) developing the notion of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) to creative self-efficacy, the extent to
which individuals believe they have the ability to produce creative outcomes. Of the
sources reviewed here, only one focused on meaning (Fairlie, 2011) and this conceptualization is closer to the challenging work dimension of creative climate (Amabile
etal., 1996).
Stimulation and support for creativity and innovation need to be aligned with organizational mission and values through integration of organizational culture and psychological climate (Bornay-Barrachina etal., 2011; Lepak etal., 2006; Martins &
Terblanche, 2003), Climate creation and enhancement are central roles of HRD in supporting organizational effectiveness yet currently this appears not to be a primary
research interest (Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2011). Organizational climate implies the need
for alignment between a specific set of organizational policies, procedures, and practices with a specific type of organizational climate and overlap with organizational
learning and knowledge management (e.g., Gibb & Waight, 2005; McLean, 2005;
437
Loewenberger
Waight, 2005) highlighting the significance of human capital (Martins etal., 2010;
Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Others propose a dual role of human capital in innovation
(Bornay-Barrachina etal., 2011) drawing on the resource-based (Barney & Wright,
1998) and knowledge-based views (Lopez-Cabrales, Perez-Luno, & Valle-Cabrera,
2009; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). In summary, considerable ambiguity surrounds
creativity and innovation and what this might mean in practice, highlighting the significance of shared meaning and creative requirement in shaping understanding and behavior. Having considered the implications for HRD of creative idea generation, shared
meaning and understanding, the discussion now turns to the role of organizational climate for creativity and innovation in supporting creative and innovative behaviors.
How Might HRD Contribute to a Supportive Climate for Creativity and

Innovation?
The final problem is the need to develop a climate supportive of creativity and innovation that is sustainable (Amabile etal., 1996; Isaksen, 2007). This is dependent on a
clearly defined and shared mission that is underpinned by values and a culture that
communicates what the organization stands for and is trying to achieve (Amabile
etal., 1996; Ekvall, 1996; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010;
Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999; Woodman etal., 1993). Climate models are valuable
in highlighting dimensions of the work environment and diagnostic assessment offers
powerful insights to inform interventions. Of the sources contributing to this integrative literature review more than half explicitly or implicitly associated climate with
creativity. Folkestad and Gonzalezs (2010) content analysis of highly read and cited
literature on innovation concluded that the dominant emergent theme is an innovative
culture. In consideration of the implications for HRD these authors question why this
emphasis was not reflected within the structure of the texts and recommend a further
content analysis of sources specifically related to developing supportive cultures.
While that is not the aim of the current contribution, this article is complementary and
informative. Another literature review on the influence of culture on creativity and
innovation exploring implications for HRD (McLean, 2005) provided support for climate dimensions (Amabile etal., 1996) leading to the suggestion that HRD practitioners familiarize themselves with the climate research,
With HRDs focus on facilitating organisational change and in particular its systemic
approach to assessment and intervention, HRD practitioners are well suited to facilitating
this type of culture change. (McLean, 2005, p. 239)
Hunter, Bedell, and Mumfordss (2007) meta-analysis of 40 samples provided evidence that climate had a sizeable effect on creative and innovative achievements
particularly in turbulent high-pressure competitive environments. Another investigation of direct and indirect leader influences on innovation provided support for establishing a climate for creativity (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011) and suggesting that
leaders can significantly shape the work context (Amabile etal., 2004). Of course,
438
this assumes that leaders understand how to stimulate and support creative and innovative behavior. While this is encouraging, these contributions fail to explore indepth all significant climate dimensions highlighting instead more well-known
examples such as autonomy and freedom typically referring to Google and 3M, that
are atypical of most organizations. Integration of creativity, leadership, and performance management highlights factors demonstrated as important here including
vision and climate dimensions (Waples & Friedrich, 2011). Others demonstrate the
relationship between learning organization characteristics and innovation
(Kontoghiorghes, Awbrey, & Feurig, 2005), including open communications, support
and recognition, resources, rewards, work environment, and knowledge management. Strongest supporters of innovation were open communication and information
sharing, risk taking and new idea promotion and information, facts, time and resource
to perform professionally. This is useful and provides evidence of considerable similarities between climates for creativity and learning. However, how this might be
developed in practice is not explored in depth. Given the paucity of research on climate for creativity and innovation it is not surprising that the significance is acknowledged but rarely discussed or investigated in depth in relation to HRD. A notable
exception is perhaps the work of Mumford (2000) which adopts an HRM focus but
includes much that is relevant to HRD. Another exception might be the contribution
of McLean (2005) in highlighting the importance of individual characteristics, CPS,
awareness, understanding, meaning, and strategic alignment that has been further
supported through later research (Loewenberger, 2009).
Increasing recognition of the need for a supportive climate is directly relevant to
HRD in consideration of how the capability and commitment necessary to effectively
stimulate, support, and sustain creativity and innovation might be developed through
a focus on social and organizational factors. In this way, this concludes the investigation of how this might be achieved at multiple levels of the organizational system.
Climate factors are significant to intrinsic motivation in stimulating, supporting, and
sustaining organizational creativity and innovation and the following discussion is
based on Amabiles (1996) climate for creativity (see Figure 1). Considerable overlap
is evident with the dimensions of Isaksen (2007) and together these represent the most
influential models. An unsupportive climate might easily destroy individual ability
and motivation (Amabile, 1996; Amabile etal., 1996). In particular evidence suggests
the motivational effects of four of Amabiles stimulant dimensions: Organizational
Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement, Work Group Support, and Challenging
Work (Amabile, 1997; Loewenberger, 2009).
Organizational Encouragement. Organizational encouragement (Amabile etal., 1996)
represents a culture that encourages creativity through the fair, constructive judgment
of ideas, rewards, and recognition for creative work, mechanisms for developing new
ideas, an active flow of ideas, and a shared vision of what the organization is trying to
do. Earlier discussion of lack of shared vision, meaning, and understanding identified
as one of the problems suggested by extant literature clearly demonstrates the necessity of communication involvement and participation.
439
Loewenberger
Support for idea generation and the fair, constructive judgment of ideas might be
facilitated through training in CPS employing structured techniques, another of the
problems suggested by extant literature and discussed in-depth above. Qualitative
investigation (Loewenberger, 2009) extends this to freedom to voice ideas (not to be
confused with the Freedom dimension of Amabiles (1996) climate model that is
concerned with autonomy). Freedom to voice ideas characterizes the perception of an
absence of hierarchy facilitating an open climate where, regardless of status, individuals feel the freedom to contribute to a lively flow of ideas, where all ideas are valued
where there is no intimidation, humiliation, or a fear of appearing stupid. Participants
in Loewenbergers (2009) investigation were passionate about feeling free to say anything, knowing they would be listened to without fear of humiliation, intimidation, or
ridicule. Evaluation and fear of evaluation (e.g., Egan, 2005) are important to creativity from a number of perspectives. For example, if individuals fail to contribute to
discussions potentially valuable contributions are missed. Perceived freedom and trust
are significant particularly as historical portrayal of the lone genius implies introversion. The principles and rules of brainstorming, in its various forms, and other structured techniques are specifically designed to support freedom to voice ideas. HRD
professionals and leaders need to question whether such a climate exists in their work
organizations. Does the absence of hierarchy and climate exist such that all employees
feel free to voice their ideas without immediate or subsequent, direct or indirect fear
of intimidation or humiliation? The implication of this is not that creativity and innovation cannot be successfully achieved in hierarchical organizations. Rather that the
potential for creative ideas exists from the bottom-up as well as top-down such that
organizations can benefit from untapped potential at all levels. Can organizations honestly say that all ideas are listened to regardless of employee status? Or do power and
influence preside over which ideas receive a fair hearing?
Qualitative research extends and develops climate models through examples in more
successfully creative organizations (Loewenberger, 2009) providing evidence for the
significance of creativity and innovation champions in developing of creative thinking
skills in themselves and in others. This might take the form of creativity and innovation
clubs that serve dual purposes in providing opportunities for ongoing development
focusing on real challenges and opportunities such that this becomes embedded in the
climate, and practice in creative thinking techniques such that these eventually become
part of employees repertoire of skills. Development of idea management systems for
future application contributes to the sustainability of organizational creativity.
Moving toward the more traditional HR areas of reward, recognition, and performance management, intrinsic elements of reward systems are more likely to be sustainable longer term. Financial rewards might not be precluded, for example, for
participation in the creativity and innovation processes regardless of whether ideas
were implementedthis is beyond individual controlbonuses for achieving creative
targets, incentives for creative work or for ongoing learning, and knowledge development. Cafeteria reward systems might also be appropriate. Recognition for creative
work might also take the form of career progression, which is often based on management skills that have not progressed to include creative work, and provides valuable
440
feedback. In the context of a highly competitive and dynamic global business environment creativity and innovation are important to success. Individuals are likely to find
such skills in high demand.
Performance management provides valuable opportunity for clarification of creative requirement (Unsworth etal., 2002; Unsworth & Clegg, 2010) in relation to
individual and team objectives, as well as for positive and constructive feedback. The
subjectivity of creativity processes and the importance of team members and others
suggests the appropriateness of multisource feedback or 360-degree appraisal. Linking
challenging targets to creativity can provide a basis for discussion, learning, and development. Targets might relate to participation in problem-solving groups and facilitation of group sessions, rather than outcomes as externally imposed goals can inhibit
creativity (Mumford, 2000). For organizations newly aspiring to be creative or innovative, in the process of transformation or needing to reignite inert aspirations, rewarding
efforts to engage in the processes is likely to be perceived more fairly than judgment
of outcomes. An interesting and challenging exercise might be to set staff a task to use
their creativity skills to design a reward system that would be meaningful, valued, and
intrinsically motivational in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining such processes in
the long term in the organization, department, or work group.
Supervisory Encouragement. Supervisory Encouragement (Amabile etal., 1996) refers
to a supervisor or line manager who supports communication and collaboration, shows
confidence in the work group, sets appropriate goals, values individual contributions,
and provides constructive feedback. Almost one third of the data set resulting from the
integrative literature review focused on the role of leadership in supporting creative
and innovative behavior. One of the more informed contributions emphasizes the need
for increased involvement, self-esteem, challenging work, supportive cultures,
enhanced problem-solving skills, performance, and career success (Gilley, Shelton, &
Gilley, 2011). These authors make useful suggestions for development of leaders and
of others in the workforce more generally including experiential development opportunities or mentoring to develop skill acquisition. These suggestions are entirely compatible with suggestions for creativity and innovation clubs suggested above. This
contribution is also useful in identifying leadership behaviors, partnering/advocating
and encouraging/asserting, and styles, learning facilitator, motivator, performance
coach, and servant leader. This is encouraging as leaders in work organizations might
not have the benefit of management training and may be unaware of more effective
leadership behaviors and styles. Others also point to the advantages of experiential
development and mentoring for leadership development, highlighting that the knowledge, skills, and abilities of creative leadership are very different from more traditional
leadership roles (Ligon, Wallace, & Osburn, 2011).
Work Group Support. Work group support (Amabile etal., 1996) represents a diversely
skilled work group, in which people communicate well, are open to new ideas, constructively challenge each others work, trust and help each other, and feel committed
to the work they are doing. This is the focus of Egans (2005) contribution on team
441
Loewenberger
diversity and team leadership. Diversity of skills in a group is likely to promote idea
generation, sparking ideas in others, stimulating associational relationships, and building on others ideas. Collaborative performance objectives and targets (although with
individual recognition) and cross-functional teams, for example, might provide the
diversity of knowledge and skills necessary for creativity, and to allow for greater
integration between teams or departments. Mechanisms, such as creativity and innovation clubs discussed above, can also enhance effective team work. Sharing of creative and innovative successes within and between groups, perhaps in the form of a
short presentation, for example, is likely to inspire others and provide opportunities for
collaborative efforts.
Challenging Work. Challenging work (Amabile etal., 1996) represents a sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects. HR models identify
challenge as significant to effective performance and as supporting creativity (e.g.,
Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Challenge is often misinterpreted given the possible
negative connotation yet it is important to realize the motivational significance of
working hard on important tasks and projects. Fairlies (2011) contribution on meaningful work is directly relevant to this dimension in highlighting its importance to
human development and that this increases employee engagement. As this author suggests, this provides clear opportunities for HRD practitioners to increase levels of
engagement as a strategic leverage point within organizations. Challenging work is
suggested as highly significant for all individuals but is particularly important for
more creative individuals, those high or very high on the Openness to experience
dimension of personality (Loewenberger, 2009). Intellectual stimulation is presented
by creative and innovative work, which is also developmental. Work might be made
more challenging by assigning responsibility to an individual or group in relation to a
project, task, or client account, for example, starting with responsibility for a small
project, perhaps, and building gradually in scale and demands. This might take the
form of self-managed teams where an individual with the most relevant knowledge
and/or expertise would lead. Competition among groups of confident skilled workers
has been suggested to enhance creativity (Cummings & Oldham, 1997; Shalley &
Oldham, 1997). CPS training will directly challenge staff capabilities, for example,
taking responsibility for management of small projects or a single problem. Practicing
creativity techniques on actual problems contributed by cross-functional team members is likely to provide a fun and challenging experience conducive to creativity and
team development, as well as to developing expertise.
Organizational Impediments. Organizational impediments (Amabile etal., 1996) is an
obstacle scale representing a culture that impedes creativity through internal political
problems, harsh criticism of new ideas, destructive internal competition, an avoidance of risk, and an over emphasis on the status quo. Essentially this scale represents
the antithesis of supportive factors and central to many items is the notion of control
that obstructs creative behavior through a negative effect on intrinsic motivation.
There is some evidence to suggest that the significance of this scale is moderated by
442
the Openness to experience dimension of personality (Loewenberger, 2009). Organizational Impediments appears significant only for those moderately high on the
Openness dimension, yet not for those low on this dimension or highly creative individuals. This suggests greater awareness of barriers to creativity and innovation by
those who are moderately creative but not by those who are less creative. For less
creative individuals Organizational Impediments might become evident as creativity
relevant skills are developed through training in creative thinking skills. This also
suggests the insignificance of such factors in presenting organizational barriers to
more independent creators.
Conclusions
Drawing on influential contributions to creativity and innovation at the level of the
organizational system this article contributes to the theoretical understanding and
practical implications for HRD. Multiple-level empirical investigation is complex,
often leading to a focus either on individual issues or the larger system, rather than on
interactions. Theorizing holistically is therefore considered a realistic approach (Upton
& Egan, 2010). This article compares extant literature in the field of creativity and
innovation with an integrated review of academic literature that attempts to form links
with HRD. While findings appear encouraging, progression is limited leading to evidence that is fragmented and inconsistent.
This article provides a timely contribution by drawing on the problems identified
by extant literature so as to consider how HRD might effectively stimulate, support,
and sustain creativity and innovation. First, what does this mean in practice to individuals across all levels, roles and functions of the organization? Shared meaning and
understanding demands effective employee involvement, empowerment and, participation aligned to active aspirations and strategic objectives. HRD practitioners are
well placed to address this problem as the first stage in realizing untapped potential
capability. This highlights the significance of creative requirement (Unsworth &
Clegg, 2010; Unsworth etal., 2002) in raising awareness of the desirability, importance and value of creativity and innovation.
Second is the observation that creative idea generation is not common for most
individuals (Egan, 2005). While some individuals are more predisposed, highly creative individuals tend to be in the minority. Most need support in developing creative
thinking skills and, again, HRD is well placed to facilitate this. There are a number of
options for how this might be achieved drawing on creativity training programs. The
main example here is training in creative thinking skills using structured techniques
within the Osborn Parnes creative problem solving model. The value and effectiveness of the Osborn Parnes CPS method as a training program employing structured
techniques at each of the stages has been demonstrated through extensive discussion,
such that it becomes embedded in the organization (Isaksen etal., 2010; Michalko,
2006; Proctor, 2010; Puccio etal., 2006; VanGundy, 1988). For example, depending
on numbers involved this might involve the initial training of creativity and innovation champions who then have responsibility for facilitation with other groups. Not
443
Loewenberger
only does this develop individual skills and capability, potentially leading to organizational transformation, but involvement in developing creative ideas around actual
challenges and opportunities in the workplace is also likely to enhance intrinsic motivation and morale.
Third is the recognition of the need for social and organizational factors to be supportive. Development of creative thinking skills is necessary but insufficient if the
work environment is unsupportive. Successful generation and exploitation of new
ideas must overcome social and organizational barriers. More than half of the sources
in this review implicitly or explicitly identify the significance of climate, suggesting
it as the dominant emergent theme (e.g., Folkestad & Gonzalez, 2010; Hunter etal.,
2007; Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011). However these contributions fail to explore in
depth all significant climate dimensions such that it is meaningful to HRD practitioners, leaders and others in how to develop and sustain a climate for creativity.
Recognition of the need for a supportive climate is not new yet rarely is it discussed
in any depth beyond the work of influential theorists and regardless of the potential
for powerful insights from diagnostic assessment of climate using reliable and valid
instruments there remains a paucity of research (Loewenberger, 2009). Climate models are valuable in identifying factors that support or inhibit creativity and innovation.
HRD is concerned with how this might be achieved in practice. Drawing on two
influential climate models (Amabile etal., 1996; Isaksen, 2007) this article contributes an in-depth exploration and consideration of the implications of each through
extensive discussion of how HRD might effectively stimulate, support, and sustain
creativity and innovation.
Recommendations
If HRD practitioners are to develop capability and commitment in leaders and others
this demands sufficient awareness and understanding of how this might be achieved.
Many contributions identify the need for creative and innovative leadership yet the
assumption that leaders understand how this might be achieved in practice or that
HRD practitioners understand how this might be achieved is nave. Integration of
creativity and innovation research with HRD remains in its infancy (Waples etal.,
2011) and the holistic conceptualization of literature (Torraco, 2005) proposed at
this point in time aims to narrow the gap between these complex fields. Drawing on
problems identified by extant literature in the field of creativity and innovation this
article has presented extensive in-depth discussion of how this might be translated
into practice. What is important is the need to raise awareness of the factors to stimulate and support creativity and innovation and what this might mean in developing
the creative and innovative potential of all individuals. This is not intended as prescriptive. In practice, this provides HRD professionals and leaders with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be creative and innovative in translating theory into
practice. While the complexities of systemic research present difficulties these are
not insurmountable and empirical investigation is called for to support these implications for practice.
444
Limitations and Future Research

This article raises questions regarding the relative significance of and interactions
between individual, social, and organizational factors. For example, the prevalent
view that all have the potential to be creative is important to the role of HRD in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining organizational creativity and innovation. Evidence
of the differential interaction of climate factors with personality characteristics needs
to be considered within the limitations that personality represents one of many individual characteristics. Intrinsic motivation is without doubt critical to the stimulation,
support, and sustainability of organizational creativity and innovation. The implications for HRD in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining organizational creativity and
innovation, as suggested in this article, provide avenues and opportunities for future
research and empirical investigation. From the perspective of HRD an important consideration is likely to be the degree of strategic influence.
Appendix
Data set
1
Strengths
Bornay-Barrachina, i.Draws on resource and knowledge-based

perspectives to explore the dual role of human
De la Rosacapital as a moderator and as well as an influence
Navarro,
on innovation.
Lpez-Cabrales,
& Valle-Cabrera ii.Suggests human capital can influence innovation
irrespective of how it is managed.
(2011)
Egan (2005)
Review of individual factors and external influences
featured in HRD-related quantitative research.
Fairlie (2011)
Folkestad &
Gonzalez (2010)
Gibb (2004)
i.Explores the value of meaningful work in HRD

practices involving employee engagement and
other outcomes.
ii.Links with climate factors, particularly Challenging
Work that is concerned with work that is valued
and important
i.Cross-case inductive analysis on teamwork and
innovation
ii.Innovative culture emerged as dominant theme
iii. important insight for HRD professionals
iv. Considerable overlap with climate factors
i. Reflecting on innovations in HRD
ii.Imagination and creativity in HRD in the
form of imported metaphors, design thinking,
development epistemology, and the aesthetics of
organization.
iii.Outlines implications for HRD practice
iv.Unusual article that has enormous implications
for creativity within HRD and the role of HRD
in stimulating and supporting creativity and
innovation in the organization
Weaknesses
i.Survey study of Spanish
companies lacking in depth
necessary to inform practice.
ii. Further support necessary.
i.Excessive focus on the individual

rather than the group or
organization.
ii.Implications for HRD limited to
recruitment and selection (HRM)
and rewards and feedback.
On the periphery for current
purposes
Identified salient themes in common

with climate models but fails to
extend to implications for HRD
Beyond the scope of this article,

although highly thought provoking
(continued)
445
Loewenberger
Appendix(continued)
Data set
6
Gibb & Waight

(2005)
Gilley, Shelton, &

Gilley (2011)
Hassan (2007)
Hunter, Bedell, &

Mumford (2007)
10
Hunter &
Cushenbery
(2011)
11
Jorgensen, Laugen,
& Boer (2007)
12
Kontoghiorghes,
Awbrey, &
Feurig
13
Ligon, Wallace, &

Osburn
Strengths
Weaknesses
i.Review of contributions appearing in this special

edition of ADHR exploring the complexities and
fragmentation in linking creativity and innovation
with HRD
ii.Directly relevant to this article in highlighting
fragmentation and strategic alignments
iv.Highlights need for creativity training and a
supportive climate
i.Explores the potential of Developmental
Leadership in HRD as a driver of organizational
innovation.
ii.Directly relevant and congruent with perspective
of this article particularly from the perspective of
leadership to climate
i.Explores employees perspectives on development
and organizational values
ii.Negative association between HRD practices,
trust, and creativity
i.meta-analysis of 42 studies exploring the
relationships between climate dimensions and
creative performance
ii.found to be effective predictors of creative
performance across criteria, samples, and settings
iii.especially effective predictors of creative
performance in turbulent, high-pressure,
competitive environments.
i.Review and integration of creativity, innovation,
and leadership literatures
ii.Model of leading for innovation spanning multiple
roles across multiple levels of analysis (individual,
team, and organization).
i.Investigates the relationship between HRM
practices and Continuous Improvement
ii.Results of CINet Survey (2003) suggests HRM has
a significant effect on CI behavior and company
performance
iii.Strongest relationship between HRM, CI,
and performance when aligned with strategic
objectives and use systems, procedures, and
processes to measure the results of their CI
activities.
i.Examines the relationship between learning
organization characteristics and change adaptation,
innovation, and performance
ii.Implications for HRD practice reinforcing
the significance of systemic interventions that
address a variety and different combinations of
learning organization characteristics over those
that solely focus on singular or a limited number
of dimensions.
i.Integrative literature review investigating
responsibilities and skills needed by leaders
ii.Strategies that HRD professionals might employ
to develop leaders for sustained innovation
iii.Important focus on experiential learning by
leaders
Review of contributions rather than

a focused contribution
Excludes any discussion of how

creative thinking might be
developed
i. Malaysian context atypical

ii.Would be useful if climate
measures used from a SHRD
perspective
What are the implications for HRD?
i. How to facilitate creativity?

ii. Role of intrinsic motivation?
iii. Employees perspectives?
Primary focus on HRM
Direct focus is on the LO rather

than creativity and innovation
Implications for HRD limited to

mentoring
(continued)
446
Appendix(continued)
Data set
14
Loewenberger
(2009)
15
Lohman (2010)
16
Madjar (2005)
17
Martins, Martins,
Pereira, &
McCabe (2010)
18
Maurer (2002)
19
McLean (2005)
Strengths
Driven by the rationale of the need for a model that
is useful to informing theory and practice
Explored the interaction of factors infuencing creativiy
across multiple levels
Support for climate models and differentiation
dependent on personality
i.Integrated literature review on the relationship of
dogmatism to problem solving that influences
(a) the type of cognitive reasoning strategy used,
(b) the degree of critical reflection that occurs,
(c) the degree of acquiescence to authority figures.
ii.Implications for HRDs role in facilitating problem
solving supportive of 6 stage CPS model
i.Review of research on the social factors for
creativity and explores the relevance of other
individuals inside and outside the organization for
creativity
ii.First, others may provide support and assistance
for new ideas
iii.Second, by presenting new information and
knowledge which triggers novel ideas and
alternative solutions.
iv.Implications for human resource development
(HRD) practice are discussed.
i.Literature-based study investigating the
relationships between human capital in a culture
that fosters learning through creativity and
innovation
ii.Draws on earlier work (Martins & Terblanche,
2003) on the influence of organizational culture
on creativity and innovation
iii.Strategy, structure, supporting mechanisms,
context that encourages and supports creative
and innovative behavior, and communications
iv.Highly influential contribution that is congruent
with the perspective of this article yet developed
independently of the theoretical underpinning
i.Reconceptualizes and integrates concepts such as
growth needs, personal mastery, learning goals,
and development orientation (LO) from the
employee perspective
ii.An employee learning and development
orientation is proposed, which includes cognitive,
affective, and behavioral constructs that describe
a tendency toward involvement in continuous
learning as a motivational state
iii.Implications for HRD from an individual learning
perspective
iv.Potential to compliment and extend extrinsic
motivation underpinning climate models
i.Review of literature on organizational culture
and climate that support or inhibit creativity and
innovation.
ii.Highly influential contribution to the 2005 special
edition of ADHR that synthesizes work of
Amabile, Kanter, Van de Ven, Angle, and others
Weaknesses
Implications for HRM/D not
empirical
Relevance limited
Important focus but limited in

relation to SHRD
No claims to inform SHRD practice

but is directly relevant
Limited direct relevance
Implications for HRD are limited
(continued)
447
Loewenberger
Appendix(continued)
Data set
20
Mumford (2000)
21
Plakhotnik &
Rocco (2011)
22
22
23
24
25
Strengths
iii.Implications for human resource development
research and practice are discussed.
i.Highly influential article exploring the implications
for HRM in supporting creativity and innoviton
ii. Suggests numerous practical examples
i.Structured literature review articles published in

the Academy of HRD Proceedings from 1994 to
2009
ii.Explores the study of organizational culture to
examine definitions, research, and implications
for practice
iii.Organizational culture is not a primary research
interest within the AHRD.
iv.HRD research of organizational culture is limited
to the rational managerial perspective on culture
i.Longitudinal empirical investigation of HRM,
Shipton, Fay,
learning and innovation
West, Patterson,
ii.Effective HRM systemsincorporating
& Birdi (2005)
sophisticated approachespredict organizational
Shipton, West,
innovation
Dawson, Birdi,
iii.Innovation is enhanced where there is a
& Patterson
supportive learning climate,
(2006)
iv.HRM takes into account induction, performance
management, socialization, training, and
commitment to HRM at strategic level (SHRD)
Taylor & Callahan i.Explores the implications of classic epistemological
(2005)
frameworksfunctionalism, interpretivism, radical
humanism, and radical structuralismfor the
study of creativity and subsequent outcomes.
ii.Creativity tends to be studied within the
functionalism, interpretivism frameworks
concerned with regulation and order
iii.Suggests alternative approaches may be useful in
studies of organizational creativity.
Waight (2005)
i.Explores possible connection between creativity
and HRD through performance related variables
such as learning, motivation, goal setting,
leadership, and job characteristics
ii.Shows how research on creativity and HRD
has examined similar learning and performance
variables.
Waples &
i.Reviews literature on creative performance and
Friedrich (2011)
how performance management can enhance
the effectiveness of leaders who seek creative
outcomes
ii.Attempt to integrate creativity literature with
the literature on leadership and performance
management
iii.Implications for specific practices leaders can
engage in to foster creative performance from
individuals who are working in either routine
(i.e., not thought of as requiring high levels
of creativity) or nonroutine (i.e., generally
considered creative) positions
Weaknesses
Where is the structured methdology

for enhancing creativiy and
innovation of direct practical
relevance to SHRD?
i.Given the centrality of
organizational culture to HRD
this is of concern
ii. Relevance for climate
Primary focus on HRM rather than

HRD and climate not a main focus
Limited relevance to professional

practice perspective of this article
Fails to extend to how this might

inform practice
Lacks focus and depth necessary to

inform practice
(continued)
448
Appendix(continued)
Data set
26
27
28
Strengths
Waples, Friedrich, i.Closing comments on 2011 special edition of

& Shelton (2011)
ADHR. suggest contributions have offered some
theoretical food for thought yet leave many
questions unanswered
-What level of impact on performance, across
levels, do leaders truly have when leading
creative efforts?
-Which influencesdirect or indirectare
most essential? Under what conditions?
-To what extent does mentoring enhance sense
making?
-What level of creative problem-solving skill is
needed prior to extensive mentoring?
- Is e-mentoring effective?
-Under what conditions do the offered
motivational tenets succeed or fail?
-Which competencies are essential and trainable?
Williams & Foti
i.Only article in this review to suggest the need for
(2011)
creative thinking skills and a supportive climate
ii.Training leaders in creative problem solving
and related thinking skills, as well as creating an
environment conducive to developing creative
leaders, organizations can better equip themselves
to develop and sustain innovation.
Wood, Beckmann, i.Should managers deliberately employ humor to
persuade and motivate staff?
& Rossiter
ii.Presents a framework for humor in managerial
(2011)
communications applied to analyses of the
likely impacts of humor in problem solving and
creativity
iii.Emphasizes cognitive and emotional perspectives
on creativity complimentary to the notions of
fun, play, and idea time of creativity training
programs and climate models
Weaknesses
i.Weve only just begun is a
disapponting conclusion to a
recent special edition
ii.None of the articles in the
special edition offer a structured
methoology as useful as that
proposed in this article
iii.Are these the right questions to
be asking?
Neither are addressed in a way that

is useful to inform professional
practice
Full value of this contribution cannot

be explored in this article
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Alagaraja, M. (2013). Mobilizing organizational alignment through strategic human resource
development. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 74-93.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organisations. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organisational behaviour (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
449
Loewenberger
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Oxford, UK: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organisations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1999). Users manual for KEYS: Assessing
the climate for creativity. A survey from the centre for creative leadership. Greensboro,
NC: CCL.
Amabile, T. M., Coon, H., Conti, R., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1185.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviours and
the work environment for creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
Balestra, I. (1997). The Osborn-Parnes CPS model: Empowering corporate assets. In K. Rajah
(Ed.), Complex creativity (pp. 87-107). London, UK: University of Greenwich Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence and personality. Annual Review
of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Basadur, M. (1993). Impacts and outcomes of creativity in organisational settings. In S.
G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and
developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 278-313). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
Birdi, K. (2003). Evaluating the effects of creativity training on employee innovation. Academy
of Management Meeting, Aug 2003. Seattle, WA: Institute of Work Psychology, University
of Sheffield.
Birdi, K. (2012). A clear idea of innovation: A practical approach to being creative and making
sure your ideas stick. London, UK: BPS.
Boddy, C. (2012). The nominal group technique: An aid to brainstorming ideas in research.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(1), 6-18.
Bornay-Barrachina, M., De la Rosa-Navarro, D., Lpez-Cabrales, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R.
(2011). Employment relationships and firm innovation: The double role of human capital.
British Journal of Management, 23, 223-240.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis:
Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London, UK: Heinemann Educational.
Callahan, J. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.
Chen, L., Marsden, J. R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Theory and analysis of company-sponsored value
co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(2), 141-172.
Chermack, T. J., & Swanson, R. A. (2008). Scenario planning: Human resource developments
strategic learning tool. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 129-146.
Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual
framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 431-462.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47,
1154-1191.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework:
From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.
450
Crossan, M. M., Maurer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR Decade
Award: Do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review,
36, 446-460.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Cummings, A., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the
high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22-38.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in
organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286-307.
Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2),
160-181.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organisational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123.
Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. (1983). Creative organizational climate:
Construction and validation of a measuring instrument, Report No 2. Stockholm: Swedish
Council for Management and Organizational Behaviour.
Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 508-525.
Folkestad, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Teamwork for innovation: A content analysis of the highly
read and highly cited literature on innovation. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
12(1), 115-136.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy
of Management Review, 21, 1112-1142.
Garavan, T. N. (2007). A strategic perspective on human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 11-30.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creative lives and creative works: A synthetic scientific approach.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 298-321). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An international approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 513-524.
Gibb, S. (2004). Imagination, creativity, and HRD: An aesthetic perspective. Human Resource
Development Review, 3(1), 53-74.
Gibb, S., & Waight, C. L. (2005). Connecting HRD and creativity: From fragmentary insights to
strategic significance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 271-286.
Gilley, J. W., Shelton, P. M., & Gilley, A. (2011). Developmental leadership: A new perspective for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13,
386-405.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.
Hassan, A. (2007). Human resource development and organizational values. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 31, 435-448.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1),
569-598.
Heslin, P. A. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 82, 129-145.
451
Loewenberger
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69-90.
Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2011). Leading for innovation: Direct and indirect influences.
Hurson, T. (2008). Think better: An innovators guide to productive thinking. London, UK:
McGraw Hill.
Isaksen, S. G. (2007). The situational outlook questionnaire: Assessing the context for change.
Psychological Reports, 100, 455-466.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2010). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for innovation and change. London, UK: Sage.
Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73-88.
Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change. Psychological Reports, 85, 665.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure
of the climate for creativity and change. Psychological Reports, 85, 665-674.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions
of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 38, 75-101.
Jorgensen, F., Laugen, B. T., & Boer, H. (2007). Human resource management for continuous
improvement. Creativity & Innovation Management, 16, 363-375.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. London, UK: Allen Lane.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organisations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organisational behaviour (pp. 123-167). London, UK: JAI Press.
Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship between
learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation and organizational
performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 185-211.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, T., & Harden, E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource
management systems in strategic human resource management research. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 217-271.
Ligon, G. S., Wallace, J. H., & Osburn, H. K. (2011). Experiential development and mentoring
processes for leaders for innovation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 297-317.
Loewenberger, P. (2009, December). Facilitating organisational creativity: Exploring psychological, social and organisational factors (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Bedfordshire, UK:
University of Bedfordshire.
Loewenberger, P. (2013). Creativity, innovation and the management of knowledge. In
S. Perkins & R. Arvinen-Muondo (Eds.), Organizational behaviour: People, process, work
and human resource management (Chapter 10; pp. 265-291). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Lohman, M. C. (2010). Integrative literature review: An unexamined triumvirate: Dogmatism,
problem solving, and HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 72-88.
Lopez-Cabrales, A., Perez-Luno, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2009). Knowledge as a mediator
between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource Management Journal,
48, 485-503.
Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees creativity.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). Theres no place like home? The contributions of work and non-work creativity support to employees creative performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757-767.
452
Martins, A., Martins, I., Pereira, O. P., & McCabe, J. (2010). Entrepreneurship and human
capital: A framework for organisational creativity and innovation. International Journal of
Learning, 17, 15-26.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative
model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1),
9-44.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 825-847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational cultures influence on creativity and innovation: A review
of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 7, 226-246.
Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques. Berkeley, CA:
Ten Speed Press.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.
Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313-351.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking.
New York, NY: Scribner.
Osborn, J. (2004). Message from the board about our 50th year. Journal of Creative Behavior,
38(1), v-vi.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp.
211-266). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W.
C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 565-593). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Parnes, S. J. (1976). Idea-stimulation techniques. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10(2), 126-129.
Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., & Arditti, L. E. (2011). Effects of quantity and quality instructions
on brainstorming. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 38-46.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective checklist scales and the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.
Plakhotnik, M. S., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). What do we know, how much, and why it matters:
Organizational culture and AHRD research 1994-2009. Human Resource Development
Review, 10(1), 74-100.
Poincar, H. (1913). The foundations of science. Lancaster, PA: Science Press.
Proctor, T. (2010). Creative problem solving for managers. London, UK: Routledge.
Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C., & Masucci, C. (2006a). A review of the effectiveness
of CPS training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity & Innovation Management, 15(1),
19-33.
453
Loewenberger
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making.
Journal of Creative Behaviour, 43(1), 23-39.
Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (2002). Managers theories about the process of innovation. Journal
of Management Studies, 39(2), 147-165.
Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training:
A meta analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.
Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches
and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 38, 149-179.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
Searle, R. H., & Ball, K. S. (2003). Supporting innovation through HR policy: Evidence from
the UK. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 50-62.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the
work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 215-223.
Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative performance: Effects of competition, presence and visibility. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 337-346.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958.
Shipton, H., Fay, D., West, M., Patterson, M., & Birdi, K. (2005). Managing people to promote
innovation. Creativity & Innovation Management, 14(2), 118-128.
Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor of
innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3-27.
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 36, 311-322.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development.
Human Development, 34, 1-32.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., OHara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1997). Creativity as investment. California
Management Review, 40(1), 8-21.
Stewart, J. (2007). The ethics of HRD. In C. Rigg, J. Stewart & K. Trehan (Eds.), Critical
human resource development: Beyond orthodoxy (pp. 59-78). Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Storey, J. (2000). The management of innovation problem. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 4, 347.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450-463.
Taylor, M. A., & Callahan, J. L. (2005). Bringing creativity into being: Underlying assumptions that influence methods of studying organizational creativity. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 7, 247-270.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1148.
454
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.
Unsworth, K., & Clegg, S. R. (2010). Why do employees undertake creative action? Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83, 77-99.
Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2002). Creative requirement: A neglected construct
in the study of employee creativity? Paper presented at the XIth European Congress of
Work and Occupational Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.
Upton, M. G., & Egan, T. M. (2010). Three approaches to multilevel theory building. Human
Resource Development Review, 9, 333-356.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32, 590-607.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Innovations and organizations: Critical perspectives. Communication Research, 15, 632-651.
VanGundy, J. A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Vehar, J. R. (1994). An impact study to improve a five-day course in facilitating creative problem solving. New York: State University of New York.
Waight, C. L. (2005). Exploring connections between human resource development and creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 151-159.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Waples, E. P., & Friedrich, T. L. (2011). Managing creative performance. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 13, 366-385.
Waples, E. P., Friedrich, T. L., & Shelton, P. M. (2011). Closing comments on leading for
innovation: Weve only just begun. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13,
406-413.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science,
invention and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Wertheimer, M. (1982). Productive thinking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, F., & Foti, R. J. (2011). Formally developing creative leadership as a driver of organizational innovation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 279-296.
Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organisational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 373-391). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, R. E., Beckmann, N., & Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Management humor. Organizational
Psychology Review, 1, 316-338.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organisational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293.
Zainol, A. S., Yusof, W. Z. M., Mastor, K. A., Sanusi, Z. M., & Ramli, N. M. (2012). Using
group brainstorming in industrial design context: Factors inhibit and exhibit. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 106-119.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
261-276.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 22,
165-217.
455
Loewenberger
Author Biography
Pauline Loewenberger is a senior lecturer in the department of management at the University

of Bedfordshire and a fellow of the Higher Education Academy. As a very experienced lecturer
her expertise draws on in excess of 20-years work experience in the commercial sector. Her
teaching and research interests include international HRM, cross-cultural management, creativity, innovation, learning, and the management of knowledge. This contribution draws on doctoral research into the facilitation of creativity and innovation presented at international
conferences.

Human Resource Development Review 2013 Loewenberger 422 55

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Human Resource Development Review 2013 Loewenberger 422 55

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Development Review 2013 Loewenberger 422 55

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

494088

HRD12410.1177/1534484313494088Human Resource Development ReviewLoewenberger

Integrative Literature Review

The Role of HRD in

Human Resource Development Review

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

perceived as undesirable by members of established organizations that operate on the

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

innovation include excessive work load pressure, organizational impediments, and

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

intervention in personal, professional, and organizational development but which has

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Business, work or organizational creativity and innovation.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Linking HRD With Creativity and Innovation

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

How Might HRD Effectively Stimulate Creative Idea Generation?

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

creative thinking albeit limited to principles of divergent and convergent thinking.

Mess finding: Search for challenges and opportunities.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

personal and professional development with potential for organizational revitalization

What Does It Mean in Practice? Strategic Alignment of Meaning and

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

How Might HRD Contribute to a Supportive Climate for Creativity and

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Human Resource Development Review 12(4)

Limitations and Future Research

Bornay-Barrachina, i.Draws on resource and knowledge-based

i.Explores the value of meaningful work in HRD

i.Excessive focus on the individual

Identified salient themes in common

Beyond the scope of this article,

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at Universiteit van Amsterdam on April 3, 2016

Gibb & Waight

Gilley, Shelton, &

Hunter, Bedell, &

Bornay-Barrachina, i.Draws on resource and knowledge-based

i.Explores the value of meaningful work in HRD

i.Excessive focus on the individual

i.Review of contributions appearing in this special

i.Structured literature review articles published in

Waples, Friedrich, i.Closing comments on 2011 special edition of