Organizational creativity – Hegemonic and alternative discourses

SUMMARY Organizational creativity – hegemonic and alternative discourses Over the course of recent developments in the societal and business environment, the concept of creativity has been brought into new arenas. The rise of ‘creative industries’ and the idea of creativity as a form of capital have attracted the interests of business and management professionals – as well as academics. As the notion of creativity has been adopted in the organization studies literature, the concept of organizational creativity has been introduced to refer to creativity that takes place in an organizational context. This doctoral thesis focuses on organizational creativity, and its purpose is to explore and problematize the hegemonic organizational creativity discourse and to provide alternative viewpoints for theorizing about creativity in organizations. Taking a discourse theory approach, this thesis, first, provides an outline of the currently predominant, i.e. hegemonic, discourse on organizational creativity, which is explored regarding themes, perspectives, methods and paradigms. Second, this thesis consists of five studies that act as illustrations of certain alternative viewpoints. Through these exemplary studies, this thesis sheds light on the limitations and taken-for-granted aspects of the hegemonic discourse and discusses what these alternative viewpoints could offer for the understanding of and theorizing for organizational creativity. This study leans on an assumption that the development of organizational creativity knowledge and the related discourse is not inevitable or progressive but rather contingent. The organizational creativity discourse has developed in a certain direction, meaning that some themes, perspectives, and methods, as well as assumptions, values, and objectives, have gained a hegemonic position over others, and are therefore often taken for granted and considered valid and relevant. The hegemonization of certain aspects, however, contributes to the marginalization of others. The thesis concludes that the hegemonic discourse on organizational creativity is based on an extensive coverage of certain themes and perspectives, such as those focusing on individual cognitive processes, motivation, or organizational climate and their relation to creativity, to name a few. The limited focus on some themes and the confinement to certain prevalent perspectives, however, results in the marginalization of other themes and perspectives. The negative, often unintended, consequences, implications, and side effects of creativity, the factors that might hinder or prevent creativity, and a deeper inquiry into the ontology and epistemology of creativity have attracted relatively marginal interest. The material embeddedness of organizational creativity, in other words, the physical organizational environment as well as the human body and its non-cognitive resources, has largely been overlooked in the hegemonic discourse, although thereare studies in this area that give reason to believe that they might prove relevant for the understanding of creativity. The hegemonic discourse is based on an individual-centered understanding of creativity which overattributes creativity to an individual and his/her cognitive capabilities, while simultaneously neglecting how, for instance, the physical environment, artifacts, social dynamics and interactions condition organizational creativity. Due to historical reasons, quantitative as well as qualitative yet functionally- oriented studies have predominated the organizational creativity discourse, although studies falling into the interpretationist paradigm have gradually become more popular. The two radical paradigms, as well as methodological and analytical approaches typical of radical research, can be considered to hold a marginal position in the field of organizational creativity. The hegemonic organizational creativity discourse has provided extensive findings related to many aspects of organizational creativity, although the con- ceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity in the hegemonic discourse are also in many respects limited and one-sided. The hegemonic discourse is based on an assumption that creativity is desirable, good, necessary, or even obligatory, and should be encouraged and nourished. The conceptualiza- tions of creativity favor the kind of creativity which is useful, valuable and can be harnessed for productivity. The current conceptualization is limited to the type of creativity that is acceptable and fits the managerial ideology, and washes out any risky, seemingly useless, or negative aspects of creativity. It also limits the possible meanings and representations that ‘creativity’ has in the respective discourse, excluding many meanings of creativity encountered in other discourses. The excessive focus on creativity that is good, positive, productive and fits the managerial agenda while ignoring other forms and aspects of creativity, however, contributes to the dilution of the notion. Practices aimed at encouraging the kind of creativity may actually entail a risk of fostering moderate alterations rather than more radical novelty, as well as management and organizational practices which limit creative endeavors, rather than increase their likelihood. The thesis concludes that although not often given the space and attention they deserve, there are alternative conceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity which embrace a broader notion of creativity. The inability to accommodate the ‘other’ understandings and viewpoints within the organizational creativity discourse runs a risk of misrepresenting the complex and many-sided phenomenon of creativity in organizational context. Keywords: Organizational creativity, creativity, organization studies, discourse theory, hegemony

Static waves in corporate space : characterizing oscillating trading patterns in New York stock exchange

Various researches in the field of econophysics has shown that fluid flow have analogous phenomena in financial market behavior, the typical parallelism being delivered between energy in fluids and information on markets. However, the geometry of the manifold on which market dynamics act out their dynamics (corporate space) is not yet known. In this thesis, utilizing a Seven year time series of prices of stocks used to compute S&P500 index on the New York Stock Exchange, we have created local chart to the corporate space with the goal of finding standing waves and other soliton like patterns in the behavior of stock price deviations from the S&P500 index. By first calculating the correlation matrix of normalized stock price deviations from the S&P500 index, we have performed a local singular value decomposition over a set of four different time windows as guides to the nature of patterns that may emerge. I turns out that in almost all cases, each singular vector is essentially determined by relatively small set of companies with big positive or negative weights on that singular vector. Over particular time windows, sometimes these weights are strongly correlated with at least one industrial sector and certain sectors are more prone to fast dynamics whereas others have longer standing waves.

A Business Incubator, Accelerator, or Coworking Space? Case Health Innovation Village at GE

Health Innovation Village at GE is one of the new communities targeted for startup and growth-oriented companies. It has been established at the premises of a multinational conglomerate that will promote networking and growth of startup companies. The concept combines features from traditional business incubators, accelerators, and coworking spaces. This research compares Health Innovation Village to these concepts regarding its goals, target clients, source of income, organization, facilities, management, and success factors. In addition, a new incubator classification model is introduced. On the other hand, Health Innovation Village is examined from its tenants’ perspective and improvements are suggested. The work was implemented as a qualitative case study by interviewing GE staff with connections to Health Innovation Village as well as startup entrepreneurs and employees’ working there. The most evident features of Health Innovation Village correspond to those of business incubators although it is atypical as a non-profit corporate business incubator. Strong network orientation and connections to venture capitalists are common characteristics of these new types of accelerators. The design of the premises conforms to the principles of coworking spaces, but the services provided to the startup companies are considerably more versatile than the services offered by coworking spaces. The advantages of Health Innovation Village are that there are first-class premises and exceptionally good networking possibilities that other types of incubators or accelerators are not able to offer. A conglomerate can also provide multifaceted special knowledge for young firms. In addition, both GE and the startups gained considerable publicity through their cooperation, indeed a characteristic that benefits both parties. Most of the expectations of the entrepreneurs were exceeded. However, communication and the scope of cooperation remain challenges. Micro companies spend their time developing and marketing their products and acquiring financing. Therefore, communication should be as clear as possible and accessible everywhere. The startups would prefer to cooperate significantly more, but few have the time available to assume the responsibility of leadership. The entrepreneurs also expected to have more possibilities for cooperation with GE. Wider collaboration might be accomplished by curation in the same way as it is used in the well-functioning coworking spaces where curators take care of practicalities and promote cooperation. Communication issues could be alleviated if the community had its own Intranet pages where all information could be concentrated. In particular, a common calendar and a room reservation system could be useful. In addition, it could be beneficial to have a section of the Intranet open for both the GE staff and the startups so that those willing to share their knowledge and those having project offers could use it for advertising.