This paper examines what leaders may do to foster individual and group creativity, in order to come up with effective and inventive solutions to issues. Governing a group of creatives presents a slew of difficulties. If you’ve ever been on a collaborative crew, you’ve likely encountered people with a diverse range of interests, activities, and viewpoint. Leaders play a vital role in boosting creativity in teams by effectively managing team interactions and helping teams to take use of their different viewpoints.
Leaders help create a safe and trusting environment in which team members may freely share their thoughts and ideas, as well as enriching an atmosphere of mutual respect and encouragement, all go a long way toward fostering creativity. Assisting the creative process of their team by ensuring that their team has access to the necessary resources and the opportunity to collaborate with external sources. Individual and team creativity is bolstered by champions of innovation who advocate for resources to nurture new ideas. Today’s organizational leaders play a key role in encouraging and promoting creative and innovative solutions, despite the various obstacles they face.
A promising theory and policy implications may be developed only if robust empirical studies are done in this field. Leadership and workplace innovation and creativity are the subjects of an extensive review we present in this study. A variety of systematic studies and arguments detailing observed patterns in five categories were constructed utilizing this article cache. To begin, we take a look at existing definitions of creativity and innovation and make some suggestions for improvements. Secondly, we carry out a thorough evaluation of the key effects of leadership on the development of creativity and innovation as well as the variables that are expected to regulate these influences. Third, we conduct a defined review of the show case factors. Fourth, the paper looks at whether the study designs that are typically used are acceptable for estimating the causal models that are essential to the discipline. An analysis of the creativity and innovation metrics employed reveals that the vast majority are suboptimal, which brings us to our fifth point.
Some of the key benefit of making this research is to focus on the impact of leadership in reference to creativity of individuals and groups. Several ontologies are presented in this paper to help organize the current research, indicate regions that have not been well researched, and provide a framework for future variable selections. Lastly, we emphasize major research ideas that we believe will refocus and improve upcoming research rigor so that we can develop more reliable and relevant hypotheses and regulatory proposals, hoping that these advices will refocus the discipline.
Description of the topic are usually all that’s given when leadership has been discussed in previous studies of creativity and innovation. Research on leadership and creativity or invention has previously focused on summarizing existing research, providing overviews of prevailing theoretical frameworks, identifying literature “holes,” and noting practical consequences. However, our paper is a two-pronged effort that explains further concepts on the topic. To begin, the paper would focus to compile a list of the most important trends among the numerous leader factors, mediators, and moderators that have been previously studied. A variety of classifications that consolidate existing research and can be used as a guide for future variable selection are presented in this paper.
Even though innovation has always been at the center of businesses, it hasn’t always been at the top of the priority list for management. A key component of entrepreneurial spirit is the ability to develop something new and suitable, which is defined as the ability to think outside the box. As a result, most managers haven’t paid much attention to creativity because they thought it was too difficult to control or because it didn’t have a direct impact on their bottom line. It’s true that academics from all across the academy, including managerial experts, have long been interested in the topic of creativity.
Consequently, there has been a considerable corpus of work on creativity accessible to any successful entrepreneur who wishes to stand back from the daily grind and engage with its questions. ” And that’s a good thing, because what used to be an academic curiosity for some executives has now become a pressing issue for many. A rapid change to an economics powered by technology has occurred. Today, the ability to execute is widely shared, and new releases have limited lifetime. As competition becomes a contest of who can come up with the most and the finest ideas, researchers in the field of creativity are finding themselves confronted with difficult concerns regarding their work.
The most important thing a leader can do is to get the appropriate people involved in the right projects at the right time. Employees involvement begins with the leader’s reinterpretation of the role of the workforce. Workers must use their imaginations instead of just doing their jobs and following orders from the top. According to Cook, Traditional management allocates employees to certain programs based on their priority. Executives are no longer the ones who come up with the ideas as in the past.
A concept, a connection of information, an insight, or a more efficient or effective method might be the output of a creative effort, and each of these had value when fully developed and working. Individual creativity and organizational creativity have been distinguished by a scholar, and it can be summarized as follows: Individual creativity is the creativity of an individual person, and people can become more creative by reading books, attending workshops, and acquiring creative thinking skills, among other methods of education. When it comes to creativity, companies can’t simply pick up a book and learn how to be more creative like people can.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK and ANALYSIS
The main question addressed in this research is the aspect of leadership effect towards innovation of groups and teams. The applied approach towards addressing the issue is through past literature review. First, we did a thorough search of the scientific literature to identify relevant papers. This led us to conduct research on “Leadership,” “Leadership,” “Creativity,” “Innovation,” “Creative Behavior,” and “Innovative Behavior” in four databases (Proquest, PsychInfo, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science). Journal articles, dissertations, book chapters, and proceedings from conferences were all included in the search. We also looked through the citations of pertinent review publications’ reference lists.
We found 185 articles and 195 samples from other researchers. Only 49 samples were at the group or corporate level, while the rest were individual samples. Employees and students were sampled in most investigations, with eight studies using a student sample. While doing a variety of systematic studies, we also used this article cache as the basis for a number of narrative arguments that were inspired by these papers’ commonalities. We’ll spend most of our time talking about the creativity and innovation of individual employees, but the vast majority of the conclusions we’ll make apply to all levels of analysis. The notions of creativity and invention are complex, yet they both have a variety of separate but connected processes that produce distinct but often similar consequences. Since imagination and invention are so dynamic, it is perhaps not unexpected that they have been challenging to describe and measure (Mumford & McIntosh, 2017). It is common knowledge that definitional confusion has a negative impact on productivity, and several previous studies made suggestions to address typological lucidity.
What I particularly like about the above definition is how it distinguishes between creativity and innovation while yet seamlessly incorporating the two concepts. A key drawback to this approach is that it defines creativity and innovation by their outputs and products. Many researchers in psychology and management use antecedent-and-outcome definitions, although they are limited in their use. First and foremost, they fail to adequately characterize the phenomenon, which may lead to misunderstandings that, as we’ll see later, encourage the development of subpar measures.
Second, they blur the line between the occurrence and its consequences, making it challenging if not impossible to tell one from the other: a good joke makes the audience laugh, but a joke is still a joke regardless of whether anyone laughs at it. Creative and innovative results and items will invariably result in measurable benefits, definition and many others. A creative concept cannot exist unless it has a direct impact on the organization, according to this argument. Assuming that we don’t have any doubts about the specific meanings of “identified,” “benefits,” and “organization” here, these concepts remain a problem. By analyzing every definition in our article sample to discover the key conceptual commonalities while also determining which are suitable or not as pieces of a construct definition, in order to avoid falling foul of the difficulties raised above.
The study of governance and creativity/innovation is investigated using a variety of measures, including self-rated personality tests and those based on the opinions of other people, as well as counts of objective measures. Neurocognitive questionnaires are the most common method of data collection in most studies. In the beginning, though, we’ll look at non-survey-based measures first. Only ten research examined non-survey-based measures of creativity and innovation. A divergent thinking test or a variation of one was utilized in five of the experimental investigations that were found to use non-survey-based measures of creativity and invention. Divergent thinking tests ask participants to come up with various possible solutions to given issues, and as a result, they measure one of the most important aspects of creativity: the ability to produce new ideas. Application of non-survey data is typically beneficial and provides actual evaluations of organizational effectiveness. It’s vital to keep in mind, however, that measures such as these don’t provide understanding into the systems and procedures that enable imaginative or inventive achievement.
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper as stated earlier is based on evaluating how leadership has influence innovation culture on individual and groups. Further evaluation of how leadership has contributed to organizational innovation culture. The paper uses two criteria in evaluation of the topic. Review of past works on the topic and self-rated personality test. To begin, assessments of the literature on creativity and innovation have recently called for better integration between the two categories. The two industries, however, are already connected, according to our study Using the George and Zhou (2001), method to quantify creativity, researchers may expect a score of roughly 40 percent originality, 34 percent innovation, and 26 percent irrelevant material when totaling all of the factors. What’s the ultimate total in terms of innovation and creativity? While all of them appear to give a fairly broad, non-specific assessment of several characteristics of inventiveness and innovation, the amounts measured vary.
Thus, it appears that ‘all’ is the least logical conclusion. In fact, the content summary explains why empirical separation of the two notions has been problematic. When creativity and innovation were separated in a recent metanalysis, there was essentially no difference in the pattern of relationships identified even when the two were divided into a minor category: creative and inventive performance. Given the content analysis of the items, this consistency is not surprising, and viewing the two pairs of scores as indicators of a larger creativity and innovation factors makes sense.
The result, the literature on creativity and invention is littered with conflicting conclusions. Prior research has revealed that distinct dimensions of creativity and innovation have differential and antecedents’ interactions with other factors. Thus, disagreement over definitions has resulted in erroneous and imprecise measurement, which has hindered substantial theoretical developments.
Future research recommendation shows that we require new tools measuring organizational creative thinking: scales that enable explicit scales that discriminate between the human, the system, and the final outcome. To better understand how leaders’ attitudes may either foster or stifle creativity and innovation, we’ve to develop new metrics that contain behavioral elements that characterize the actions in which individuals, groups, and organizations collaborate to generate and adopt new ideas. In order to understand the complicated interactions between administration and the artistic and imaginative approach, it is necessary to use scales.
In conclusion, we found that study on leadership, creativity, and innovation is a daynamic and expanding field that has produced a slew of noteworthy discoveries thus far. According to both theoretical and empirical research, the influence of leaders on workplace creativity and innovation cannot be overstated. For this reason, further research is needed to better understand what leadership behaviors are most significant and how these behaviors promote creativity and innovation. To be clear, we don’t advocate for more of the same or smaller exploratory investigations, but rather for larger studies that are scientifically rigorous.
Mumford, M.D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M.S., Zaccaro, S.J. and Johnson, J.F., 1998. Domain-based scoring in divergent-thinking tests: Validation evidence in an occupational sample. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), pp.151-163.