7 slide power point. Details are within the attachment called “Business Project”, plus the other two attachments are the required reference material.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
The project for this lesson is required to be a 7-slide PowerPoint presentation
Step 1: Review related readings found below and conduct online research to develop your
Get a glimpse into business creativity at LEGO of toy building-block fame while reading the
Unleashed Designers Gone Astray case study. Using the Harvard three component models you
read about, describe and summarize the role of LEGO’s managers in the creative process.
Identify the role of LEGO’s managers in the creative process.
Consider the managers’ roles using the Harvard three component model.
Step 2: Begin a PowerPoint Slide Presentation introduction (3 slides):
Slide 1: Create a Title Slide – Case Study Scenario Name and the Harvard Three Component
Slide 2: Briefly describe what is the Harvard three component model
Slide 3: Briefly summarize the LEGO – Unleashed Designers Gone Astray case study scenario
Include a statement followed with a few (2-4) key points on each slide
Note: For all PowerPoints Slides in the seven slide presentation (with the exception of Title and
Complete Speaker Notes (what you would say to your audience) for each individual slide
should be included
Speaker Notes should not be the same as on the slides but instead should elaborate upon
what the audience is viewing
Reference to Lego Case Study and Harvard Business Model needs to be referenced
within content of slides (author last name, date, pg. #)
Select the information you want to highlight on each PowerPoint slide (slides 4-6).
You have three slides with which to highlight the key points you want to make about the
role of LEGO’s managers in the creative process and the application of the Harvard three
Synthesize your thoughts into a few bold points to make on each slide.
The final content slide should be a brief summary of the overall presentation
Speaker Notes (what you would say to your audience) for each individual slide should be
Step 3: Use artwork, photos or other images.
Convey your brief talking points with images that add “pow” to your presentation or illustrate
PowerPoint Reference Page (slide 7)
Create an APA PowerPoint Reference slide that includes the complete APA references for the
Lego Case Study and the Harvard Business Model
The use of copyrighted materials in all formats, including the creation, online delivery, and use
of digital copies of copyrighted materials, must be in compliance with U.S. Copyright Law
(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/). Materials may not be reproduced in any form without
permission from the publisher, except as permitted under U.S. copyright law. Copyrighted
works are provided under Fair Use Guidelines only to serve personal study, scholarship,
research, or teaching needs.
Harvard Business School
January 5, 1996
Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
by Professor Teresa M. Amabile, Harvard Business School
We have lots of different attitudes, but in one of our attitudes as human beings, we
make up a romantic tale about ourselves. Falling in love is mysterious, thinking is mysterious
. . . and so we create great words like ”creativity.” Creativity is thinking; it just happens to be
thinking that leads to results that we think are great.1
According to conventional wisdom, creativity is something done by creative people. Even
creativity researchers, for several decades, seemed to guide their work by this principle, focusing
predominantly on individual differences: What are creative people like, and how are they different
from most people in the world? Although this person-centered approach yielded some important
findings about the backgrounds, personality traits, and work styles of outstandingly creative people
(e.g., Barron,, 1955; 1968; MacKinnon, 1962;1965), it was both limited and limiting. The approach
offered little to practitioners concerned with helping people to become more creative in their work,
and it virtually ignored the role of the social environment in creativity and innovation.
In contrast to the traditional approach, the contemporary approach to creativity research
assumes that all humans with normal capacities are able to produce at least moderately creative work
in some domain, some of the time—and that the social environment can influence both the level and
the frequency of creative behavior. Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas in any
domain. In order to be considered creative, a product or an idea must be different from what has
been done before. (Few creativity theorists hold the strong position that a creative idea must be
completely unique.) But the product or idea cannot be merely different for difference’s sake; it must
also be appropriate to the goal at hand, correct, valuable, or expressive of meaning. Innovation is the
successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization. In this view, creativity by
individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; it is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Successful innovation depends on other factors, as well, and it can stem not only from creative ideas
that originate within the organization but also from ideas that originate elsewhere (as in technology
transfer). However, this note is concerned exclusively with intra-organizational creativity and
Simon, H. Interview in the Carnegie-Mellon University Magazine, Fall 1990, p.11.
Professor Teresa M. Amabile prepared this note for the second-year elective MBA course “Entrepreneurship, Creativity,
and Organization.” It is adapted from several articles written by Teresa M. Amabile (especially Amabile (1994); (in press b); Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron (in press); and Amabile & Tighe (1993); see References section at the end of
this note). This note should be used in conjunction with the notes, “The Motivation for Creativity in Organizations,” and
“”Managing for Creativity.”
Copyright © 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685 or write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163. No
part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in
any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the
permission of Harvard Business School.
Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
innovation. It addresses the meaning and measurement of creativity, the components of creativity
and innovation, and the role of these processes in a business form where creativity is particularly
Because there are many misconceptions about creativity, it is important to consider what
creativity is not:
Eccentric personality. Truly creative work is not only novel; it is also
appropriate. Moreover, it is much more useful to think of creativity as arising
from a particular behavior and resulting in a particular product or idea—rather
than thinking of creativity as a quality of a personality (which implies that
whatever a ” creative person” does must be creative).
Art (or The Arts). Creativity is novel and appropriate behavior in any domain of
human activity—from business management to scientific discovery to fictionwriting to child-rearing to social interaction to painting . . . and so on.
Intelligence. As it is traditionally conceived, intelligence is the set of capacities
that are measured on IQ tests or courses in school. Certainly, intelligence can
contribute to creativity. But research shows that there is much more to creativity
than just “smarts.” In fact, above modestly high IQ’s, there is no clear
relationship between intelligence and creativity.
Good. Novel and goal-appropriate behaviors can be applied to evil and
destructive ends just as well as they can be applied to good, responsible, and
If we trace back the origins of nearly every existing business in the United States, we will find
an entrepreneur—an individual who pursued an idea, a perceived opportunity for profitably
delivering a service or product, regardless of the difficulties that he or she faced. Given the many
obstacles that lie in the entrepreneurial pathway, considerable creativity is required.
Entrepreneurship is typically defined in terms of innovation. For example, Schumpeter (1934)
said that entrepreneurial activity involves the carrying out of new combinations, the “creative
destruction” of an existing equilibrium within a particular industry. This view of entrepreneurship,
widely accepted within the academic community (e.g., Bull & Willard, 1993), has been elaborated by
others, as “. . . the process whereby invention is put into practice, transforming a disembodied idea
into a workable and economically viable operation” (Baumol, 1993, p. 9). Thus, entrepreneurship is a
particular form of innovation. It is the successful implementation of creative ideas to produce a new
business, or a new initiative within an existing business.
The definitions of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship lead directly to a definition of
The implementation of novel, useful ideas to establish a new business
program to deliver products or services. The primary novel, useful ideas may
do with (a) the products or services themselves, (b) identifying a market
products or services, (c) ways of producing and delivering the products or
or (d) ways of obtaining resources to produce or deliver the products or services.
Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
Notice that, while the definition of entrepreneurial creativity focuses on novel, useful ideas
(the standard definition of creativity), the “entrepreneurial” part of the phrase requires action—the
implementation of those ideas, or innovation. Notice also that entrepreneurial creativity can still exist
even when the product or service is not particularly novel, or when a novel product or service is
borrowed or bought (or perhaps stolen!) from someone else. All that is required is that novel,
appropriate solutions be applied at some point in the process of creating and bringing the product or
service to market.
As with general creativity, it is important to consider what entrepreneurial creativity is not. It
is not limited to the establishment of new businesses, because it can be found when truly new
programs or undertakings are established within existing businesses. Moreover, it is not necessarily
present in the creation of any new business; some significant degree of novelty must be involved, at
some stage of the process. For example, opening a franchise of an existing business, or any other
standard operation, with nothing notably different, would not constitute entrepreneurial creativity—
unless significantly novel ideas were involved in some aspect, such as raising funds or choosing the
location. Entrepreneurial creativity is not present in most of the incremental product or service
improvements within established systems or paradigms. Moreover, even when a truly novel product
or service idea is present, or when there is a novel insight about a market opportunity,
entrepreneurial creativity does not exist unless the ideas are implemented in the creation of a new
business or enterprise.
Creativity can enter into entrepreneurial activity in many ways. The entrepreneur may have a
novel idea for a particular product or service, something that is different from what has been done
before and is likely to be seen as useful or desirable by customers. This is what people typically think
of when they hear the term “creativity” in a business context. Because they believe that creativity
refers only to a high degree of novelty in the basic idea for the product or service, they may conclude
that creativity has virtually no role in many successful entrepreneurial ventures. However, the
novelty may be found not in the product itself but in the means for creating or delivering it—the
identification of new market opportunities, or the organization and the systems that are established
for bringing the product to market (Stevenson, 1984; Timmons, 1977; Timmons, Muzyka, Stevenson,
& Bygrave, 1987). Finally, novel and appropriate solutions might be necessary for marshaling
resources required for the undertaking; indeed, entrepreneurship is often defined as the pursuit of
opportunity without regard to the resources currently controlled (Stevenson, 1983). It is unlikely that
a given entrepreneurial venture will be highly creative (extremely novel as well as appropriate) along
each of these dimensions; in fact, high degrees of novelty along all dimensions may not be desirable
(Hart, 1995). Nonetheless, successful entrepreneurship probably requires at least one of these forms of
Where Does Creativity Reside?
Is creativity a quality of persons, processes, or products? Undoubtedly, it is all three. Persons
can have, in greater or lesser degrees, the ability and inclination to produce novel and appropriate
work and, as such, those persons may be considered more or less creative. Processes of thought and
behavior may be more or less likely to produce novel and appropriate work and, as such, those
processes may be considered more or less creative. Products (new business plans, scientific theories,
artworks, articulated ideas, dramatic performances, and so on) may be more or less novel and
appropriate and, as such, those products may be considered more or less creative. The question that
concerns us is, which approach is most useful for management science and management practice?
Science is the study of observable phenomena, and management involves the shaping of
observable behaviors and outcomes. Ultimately, then, we must base any assessment of creativity on
observable products or ideas. Although we may acknowledge that a highly creative person (one
capable of highly creative work) can generate a highly creative thought process (one that yields
Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
highly creative ideas), that person and that thought process are not relevant for study or for
management unless the ideas are somehow expressed. A product can be an uttered word, a new
product prototype, a dramatic stance, a manuscript, a souffle, a collage . . . but it must be observable
by others. Hence, it is only by reference to their products (often, their accumulated products) that we
can label persons as creative, and it is only by examination of the products of thought processes that
we can label those processes as creative.
Many managers assume that, although they can assess productivity, product revenues,
process quality, and a host of other features of the work done in their firms, they cannot assess—or
even recognize—creativity. They view creativity as mysterious, vague, slippery, or ephemeral.
However, years of research suggest that creativity can be reliably recognized and assessed, as long as
the people making the assessments have a good degree of familiarity with work done in the particular
domain (Amabile, 1982; in press). For example, poets can reliably assess the degree of creativity in
poems, MBA students can reliably assess the degree of creativity in solutions to business problems,
artists can reliably assess the degree of creativity in art-works, and business managers can reliably
assess the degree of creativity in team projects (Amabile, in press—a). What this means is that experts
(or at least people who are familiar with a particular domain), who use their own subjective view of
creativity, and who make completely independent judgments of creativity on a set of products,
produce judgments that inter-correlate surprisingly well.
This method of judging creativity is called consensual assessment, and it derives from a
simple operational definition of creativity: Products or responses are creative to the extent that
appropriate observers agree that they are creative. In this context, appropriate observers are people
who are familiar with a domain. For example, if solutions to business problems are going to be
assessed on creativity, it would be inappropriate to ask school-teachers or artists to make those
assessments. Similarly, if poems are being assessed, a group of business managers would not make
the best set of judges. The guiding assumption is that, in recognizing creativity in a particular domain,
people who actually work in that domain know best. As long as there is a good degree of agreement
in the independent judgments made by experts (and there usually is), then composites of their ratings
can be used as the creativity measures.
The consensual assessment technique may not be useful for truly break-through work in
many domains, but then, no assessment method is useful for work being done at the frontiers of a
domain; only the test of time and historical consensus can say whether work was truly creative or
merely bizarre. Moreover, the consensual assessment technique allows us to measure something as
inherently unpredictable as creativity by allowing us to avoid specifying particular criteria in
advance. We cannot say exactly what characteristics the next creative breakthrough in biochemistry
will have, but we are confident that, in time, biochemists will reliably recognize it as such.
The Components of Creativity
The componential model of creativity includes all factors that contribute to creativity—person
factors as well as work environment variables (Amabile, 1983a, 1983b, 1988a, 1988b). The model
includes three major components of creativity, each of which is necessary for creativity in any given
domain (see Figure 1).
Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
Expertise is the foundation for all creative work. This component includes memory for factual
knowledge, technical proficiency, and special talents in the target work domain—for example, in gene
splicing, or in computer simulation, or in strategic management. A bio-engineer’s expertise includes
his innate talent for imagining and thinking about complex scientific problems as well as sensing out
the important problems in that domain, his factual knowledge of biochemistry and the techniques of
genetic engineering, his familiarity with past and current work in the area, and the technical
laboratory skill he has acquired. This component can be viewed as the set of cognitive pathways that
may be followed for solving a given problem or doing a given task. As Newell and Simon (1972)
poetically describe it, this component can be considered the problem solver’s “network of possible
wanderings” (p. 82).
This component provides the “something extra” of creative performance, and creative
thinking skills can be applied in any domain. Assuming that an individual has some incentive to
perform an activity, performance will be “technically good” or “adequate” or “acceptable” if the
requisite expertise is in place. However, even with these skills at an extraordinarily high level, an
individual will not produce creative work if creative thinking skills are lacking. These skills include a
cognitive style favorable to taking new perspectives on problems, an application of techniques (or
“heuristics”) for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and a working style conducive to
persistent, energetic pursuit of one’s work.
Creative thinking skill depends to some extent on personality characteristics related to
independence, self-discipline, orientation toward risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance in
the face of frustration, and a relative unconcern for social approval (Barron, 1955; Feldman, 1980;
Golaan, 1963; Hogarth, 1980 …
Purchase answer to see full