ENT10002: Creativity and Innovation | Assignment

ENT10002: CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Table of Contents
1.0 Section A: Componential Theory of Creativity.......................................................3
2.0 Section B: Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory.....................................................6
References.................................................................................................................11
Page 2 of 13

1.0 Section A: Componential Theory of Creativity
The Componential theory of creativity may be considered to be one of the most
widely discussed and applied theories of creativity in the study of business as well as
in the corporate world. The theory serves as a foundation for various studies in social
science as well as business. The theory was first conceptualized by Teresa Amabile
in the year 1983 and has undergone a lot of changes with the passage of time
afterwards. The essence of the theory revolves around the fact that the creativity of
an individual may evolve out of a given situation as a product of certain components
(Amabile, 2012).
Under this theory, the creativity of a person is highest when an intrinsically motivated
person with expertise, domain knowledge and skill may apply creative thinking in an
environment congenial to critical thinking and supportive towards creativity. In other
words, taking reference from the previous point, the theory has four different
components.
 First of all, there should be an intrinsic motivation for a person. Such a
motivational element should come from within.
 Secondly, the person should have a high degree of domain knowledge,
expertise and skill acquired through practice and guidance.
 Thirdly, the person should be able to think creatively. This concept is
propagated by the advocates of system thinking that establish the fact that a
person should be able to understand both the pros and cons of a proposition.
 Lastly, the environment should be creativity-friendly. In other words, the
support system should be essential to enhance the creativity level of a person
(Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
Page 3 of 13

Componential theory of creativity may also be defined to be a comprehensive tool or
model which systematically decomposes the creativity into several components.
Under this theory, creativity is conceived to be a product which contributes towards
the creation of something new and different. In the opinion of Amabile and Pratt
(2016), the four components jointly contribute towards a person's creativity; however,
these components may need to undergo several changes to get accustomed with
the changing situations, activities, process and scenarios and hence, it may be
stated that the creativity of an individual perspective is a dynamic concept (Zhang
and Kwan, 2018).
Nevo, Nevo and Pinsonneault (2019) state that since creativity is defined to be a
product of appropriate response or solutions or activities to an open-ended task, it
may assume different structure and different forms. In this context, it may be wise to
know that creativity does not necessarily mean doing something different. On the
other hand, creativity means doing different things. In other words, creativity may
respond to something new which was not in existence before and therefore the
primary assumption behind the theory focuses towards a comprehensive
psychological and organisational approach towards innovation. Hence, it is
construed that, as stated earlier, the four components of the creativity combinedly
contributes towards such innovation (Adil and Ab Hamid, 2019).
As per the consideration of Abu-Bakar, Liew and Tan (2016), the domain knowledge
may denote technical skills, know-how, expertise, talent and intelligence. These
factors combinedly enable a person to draw upon conclusion as to an open-ended
task with respect to its solution. Fan (2019, December) opines that the utilisation of
all these skills may help the individual to judge the viability of responses and
possibilities and find out the solution of a problem scenario.
Page 4 of 13

On the other hand, the creative learning and thinking is a matter of a cognitive style
and behavioural trait that an individual may inculcate within own self. A disciplinary
work style and cognitive process jointly enable the individual to synthesise the
information, process the same to extract the theme related to perception and
performance and thereby achieve an unambiguous and informed decision (Adil and
Ab Hamid, 2019).
In addition, the task motivation, on the contrary, is another crucial aspect of
creativity. An individual may be motivated externally or internally. Intrinsic motivation
may assume several forms such as value and principal, culture, ethics and mental
mapping of the individual and creativity may be considered to be at its highest form
when the individual is satisfied or motivated to the fullest extent possible (Fan, 2019,
December). De-motivated workforce cannot be creative; however, in this context, it is
wise to note that extrinsic motivators such as rewards, performance appraisals,
recognitions may dilute the importance of intrinsic motivation which, in turn, may
affect the creativity on account of controlling and procedural binding that is an
impediment for creativity (Stum, 2009).
Besides, the social and external environment may affect an individual mindset and
creativity level (Nevo, Nevo and Pinsonneault, 2019). For example, a disturbing
political setup in a country may adversely affect the creative thinking of the thinkers
within society. In such a scenario, there is lesser freedom in carrying out work (Abu-
Bakar, Liew and Tan, 2016). Therefore, the control, supervision and monitoring
should be within the reasonable limit and regulators should encourage thinking out of
the box. As per the opinion of Adil and Ab Hamid (2019), such an environment may
be considered to be congenial to the growth of creativity.
Page 5 of 13

For me, intrinsic motivation is the most important factor for creativity. if I am not
motivated from within, I cannot be creative. In this context, I would like to say that
intrinsic motivation is different from extrinsic motivation where external impetus such
as award, appraisal, recognition etc are being put to motivate a person. For example,
if a student studies for the purpose of getting a reward from his parents, then that is
extrinsic motivation. On the other hand, if the student studies because he loves the
subject then the same is the intrinsic motivation (Adil and Ab Hamid, 2019). I think
that until and unless I feel the inner urge, I cannot concentrate and focus towards
creating something new and therefore for myself intrinsic motivation plays the most
important role in creativity theory.
Taking a clue from the previous point, I would like to say that the componential
theory of creativity is dynamic and changes as per the situational requirement. Since
business is a dynamic concept and contingent upon external factors and influencers,
the concept of creativity may also need to be changed accordingly to adapt with the
changing atmosphere and pattern (Hashim, Sueb, Damio and Hashim, 2019). If
being a leader, I need to instil a culture of creativity within my workplace, I would like
to focus on the motivational part at first. I would like to motivate my people through
participative leadership to boost up feeling or sense of inclusion within the
workplace. As a result. The employees become intrinsically motivated. Also, I think
that the workplace should be congenial to problem solving and creative thinking and
therefore the same will add value to the thinking process of the employees to a
greater extent (Rennick, and McKay, 2018).
2.0 Section B: Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory
One of the most popular methods of assessment of cognitive style was Kirton’s
Adaption Innovation (KAI) Theory. The given model of adoption innovation inventory
Page 6 of 13

is widely used among the HR professionals, psychologists, the practitioners and
researchers of social sciences as well. KAI is considered to be the world's one of the
most widely used problem-solving approaches that measure the degree of individual
creativity and innovation (Bush, Friedel, Hoerbert and Broyles, 2017). The method
was originally conceived by Kirton in the year 1976. The primary aim of the model is
to focus on the fact that the cognitive style and tendency of individual and their
problem-solving style are different and change with time and situation as well
(Martin-Rubio et al, 2018, April).
 As per the given theory, individuals are of two types from the viewpoint of
cognitive style namely, adaptors and innovators. The individuals who are
considered to be adaptors generally prefer doing things better (Bart,
Hokanson and Can, 2017).
 On the other hand, individuals who are innovators generally prefer doing
things differently. In short, innovators do the same thing in a different manner
and adaptors do the same things in a better manner (Michael, 2018).
The concept of the theory is basically based on 32 questionnaires sets and the score
of those questionnaires may range from 32 to 160. It has been observed that a
person with adaptive cognitive style may score anywhere between 60 to 90 and on
the other hand, the persons with innovative style may score between 110 to 140
(Friedel, Clegorne, Kaufman, Seibel and Anderson, 2016).
As per the opinion of Hung, Tung and Chen (2019), in this context, it may be noted
that adaptors are the ones who prefer problem-solving in a most structured and
scientific manner. The adapters are more concerned with solving problems rather
than finding them and therefore they put emphasis on seeking solutions to the
problems. Also, Friedel, Clegorne, Kaufman, Seibel and Anderson (2016) states, on
Page 7 of 13

the other hand, innovators have a tendency to overhaul the entire process and its
nitty-gritty. Alakashee and Al-Samarrai (2018) state that the innovators generally act
in a seemingly undisciplined manner and prefer to achieve goals in the
unconventional way. As per the theory, individuals’ problem-solving style in cognitive
approach may not change over time; however, situational impetus or the motivators
may affect the understanding and knowledge of different persons based upon which
different personality and creative thinking skill may get formed subsequently (Martin-
Rubio et al, 2018, April).
KAI may suggest that an organisation may have two kinds of resources like adaptors
and innovators and both of them are effective in achieving the organisational goal in
a sustainable manner (Alakashee and Al-Samarrai, 2018). Some prefer doing things
in a better way and on the other hand, some may prefer doing things in a different
way. However, at the end of the day, both type of personalities is utmost needed for
an organisation in terms of operational excellence and sustainability. It may be
stated that each style is equal and one style is not better than others; in short, both
are needed in an organisation. Also, Bush, Friedel, Hoerbert and Broyles (2017)
states that it may be stated that the theory aims to reduce the gap of knowledge and
cognitive style within an organisation. Managing a white variety of employees may
be critical for the leaders as group dynamic is always a critical aspect for a
leadership role (Clapp and Ruckthum, 2017). In the consideration of Bart, Hokanson
and Can (2017), the process of understanding people from different background with
different cultural mindset and thinking process may be difficult at times and this
theory may act as helping tool for the leaders to assess the cognitive style of the
people and get embedded the same within the work culture of the business. The tool
may assist the managers in the task of assessment of behavioural trait and skill level
Page 8 of 13

of different persons and thereby propose a change or streamline the operation. The
fact that both the adaptors and the innovators are similarly needed in an
organisational context may prove to be considered helpful for the leaders in future in
terms of managing a diverse team and motivating them a towards a common goal
(Hung, Tung and Chen, 2019).
Understanding the essence of the given theory, I would like to say that the theory
was developed almost 40 years back the theory did not put the focus on any of the
thinking styles; be it adaptive or innovative. However, nowadays, leaders generally
prefer to be innovative and such leadership style has emerged as one of the most
successful and widely used leadership styles. In other words, it has been observed
that the theory has got its relevance in today's complex business world as well.
However, it should be noted that the adapters are no way less competent or skilful
than that of innovators and therefore a business organisation must consider all type
of cognitive style of employees as a part of its work culture. I being a leader of a
business organisation would like to use the theory and its practical knowledge by
understanding the fact that an organisation may have different employees with
different cognitive style. The working environment should, therefore, be supportive
towards the critical thinking process and any constraint should be avoided which
may act as a deterrent for their free flow of thinking in creativity. Different type of
employees may need different levels of attention and support service from the
organisation in terms of counselling, congenial work culture and informational
support. I would like to help them to have access to the elements of instructions and
resources so that their respective cognitive style will improve. Also, I would like to
say that bridging gap in cognitive style is important and a patient and careful
appraisal of knowledge level and cognitive style of the employees may help the
Page 9 of 13

management to produce an efficient workplace culture and policy manual in the long-
run in a most time-efficient manner (Sim and Wright, 2020).
Page 10 of 13

References
Abu-Bakar, H.M., Liew, N.S.Y. and Tan, J.R., 2016. Towards a comprehensive
framework of creativity: integrating cognition into the componential theory of
creativity.
Adil, M.S. and Ab Hamid, K.B., 2019. The Relationships between Creative Self-
Efficacy, Intrinsic Motivation and Creative Performance. International Journal of
Innovative Knowledge Concepts, 7, p.4.
Adil, M.S. and Ab Hamid, K.B., 2019. The Relationships between Leader Creativity
Expectations, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Performance. SEISENSE Journal of
Management, 2(2), pp.58-68.
Alakashee, B.A. and Al-Samarrai, B.N., 2018. Diagnosis of Creative Students at
University: Development and Validation of the Learner Scale for Problem-Solving
Styles. European Journal of Social Sciences, 57(3), pp.314-329.
Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G., 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity
and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36, pp.157-183.
Amabile, T.M., 2012. Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School,
12(96), pp.1-10.
Bart, W.M., Hokanson, B. and Can, I., 2017. An investigation of the factor structure
of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 17(2).
Bush, S.A., Friedel, C.R., Hoerbert, L.R. and Broyles, T.W., 2017. Connecting
Problem-Solving Style to Peer Evaluations of Performance in Secondary
Cooperative Learning Projects. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(2), pp.35-49.
Page 11 of 13

Clapp, R. and Ruckthum, V., 2017. The cross-cultural use of the Kirton adaption-
innovation inventory: a further exploration. ABAC ODI Journal Vision. Action. The
outcome, 4(2), p.104.
Fan, M., 2019, December. How Does Creative Learning Environment Foster Student
Creativity? An Examination on Multiple Explanatory Mechanisms. In the 5th Annual
International Conference on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity
Development (SSCHD 2019). Atlantis Press.
Friedel, C.R., Clegorne, N.A., Kaufman, E.K., Seibel, M.M. and Anderson, J.C.,
2016. Connecting leadership with preferences toward adaption and
innovation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(1), pp.37-39.
Hashim, H., Sueb, R., Damio, S.M. and Hashim, N., 2019. Validating a Partial of
Amabile’s Componential Theory: A Psychometric Procedure.
Hung, H.C., Tung, W.K. and Chen, L.J., 2019. LEARNING RESULT OF
SYSTEMATIC INNOVATION COURSE UNDER DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES
FOR STUDENTS. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 12(1),
pp.365-374.
Martin-Rubio, I., Andina, D., Mendez, A., Gascó, G., Gómez, D., Medina, S.,
Fabregat, J., Antón, J.M., Grau, J., Moratiel, R. and Saa-Requejo, A., 2018, April.
Individual’s Problem Solving: Adaptation vs. Innovation. A study in UPM. In EGU
General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 20, p. 18517).
Michael, M.G., 2018. Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Kirton Adaption-
Innovation Theory in High-Performance Organizations.
Nevo, S., Nevo, D. and Pinsonneault, A., 2019. NURTURING THE CREATIVITY
POTENTIAL OF ORGANISATIONAL IT.
Page 12 of 13

Rennick, C. and McKay, K., 2018. Componential Theories of Creativity: A Case
Study of Teaching Creative Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Canadian
Engineering Education Association (CEEA).
Sim, E.R. and Wright, G., 2020. A comparison of adaption-innovation styles between
information systems majors and computer science majors. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 13(1), p.5.
Stum, J 2009, Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory: Managing Cognitive Styles in
Times of Diversity and Change, Emerging Leadership Journeys, 2(1), pp. 66-78.
Zhang, X. and Kwan, H.K., 2018. Empowering leadership and team creativity: The
roles of team learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity.
In Creative Leadership (pp. 95-121). Routledge.
Page 13 of 13