1.2. Culture for radical creativity

What does a culture that encourages radical creativity look like? How do you build and foster this culture?

---

“I arrived at this innovation due to my willingness to ask so-called stupid questions,” Hedar Al-Terke said.

“Through ongoing collaboration with my team, asking those probing questions could reveal wider-reaching applications of this technology.”

Al-Terke is an Aalto University researcher who pioneered a new cancer imaging technology based on microbubbles that allows cancer diagnosis earlier, faster, and cheaper.

In this sub-chapter, you are introduced to the culture of radical creativity. First, we will touch upon the enablers and barriers of individual and team-level creativity as they are discussed in creativity research. Then we’ll explore how Aalto University empowers a culture of radical creativity with its students, teachers, researchers, staff, and leaders.

Let’s start by defining what is an organizational culture. One way to think of it is as the shared beliefs, values, norms, and practices that shape the behaviour of individuals within an organization. Think of it like the organization’s unique personality that includes the leadership’s expectations and employees’ expectations around what it takes to perform well.

A culture of creativity acknowledges the centrality of creativity for the functioning of the organization. Creativity is thus reflected in the way leadership treats the employees and the wider community, the way employees treat one another and the extent to which autonomy is allowed in making choices, developing new ideas, and personal expression.

How can organizations encourage a culture of creativity? In the last four decades, this question has been explored by the renowned researcher in the field, Teresa Amabile. A professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, Teresa is well-known in this area for her noteworthy theory, The Componential Theory of Creativity, first published in 1983, which draws attention to how the social environment can influence three personal factors relevant to creativity (Amabile, 2011):

• An individual’s domain-relevant skills what competencies you master and what competencies you can acquire.
• The creativity-relevant skills – your creative thinking abilities.
• The motivation to perform creatively a specific task.

To date, the Componential Theory of Creativity has had two revisions. The first development is about the role of the team on the individual level of creativity-relevant processes. The team-level creativity-relevant processes, defined as “a group’s ability to work together and make the most of each member’s skill set” (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012, pp. 10), can foster personal creativity by encouraging individual learning.

Moreover, individual learning must have meaning for the person engaged in it. Remember Hedar Al-Terke, the inventor of microbubble cancer screening technology? He was encouraged by his supervisor to get creative with his research project. This enabled Hedar to think about what topics are meaningful to him and have the capacity for substantial impact:

“Healthcare has always been a subject at the top of my mind. With the task of choosing a new research direction, I began exploring functional interfaces for medical applications”.

In 2016, the componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations was revised for the second time and introduced the meaning of work as a crucial factor for high individual performance on the job. Differently said, your creative thinking is enhanced when you do a type of work that you perceive as positive and significant for you personally or for other people who matter to you.

To sum up, the extent to which individuals perceive their work to be meaningful drives them to engage in creative problem-solving, to be more persistent during the creative process, and be willing to turn leadership statements into creative actions.

Three componential models of creativity

The three models of the componential theory of creativity proposed by Teresa Amabile and her colleagues have three assumptions in common.

---

First, the models assume that the individuals’ perceptions of the environment of creativity within the organization (the extent to which people feel supported to work on their ideas) are likely to impact the motivation to engage in behaviours conducive to innovation.

Second, the creativity models assume that individual and organization-level creativity are intertwined. The creativity of individuals and teams enables organic innovation within organizations. Creative ideas are the seed of innovation. At the same time, characteristics of the organization, like managerial practices and organizational hierarchy, facilitate or impede individual and team creativity.

Third and last, there is the assumption that there is a similarity between the enabling factors of creativity at the individual level and the facilitators of organizational innovation. Both personal creativity and organizational innovation result in the generation of something novel. Therefore, both individual and organizational creativity require three components: motivation, basic resources or raw materials and a set of skills for combining them in new ways. (see Figure 1 below)

Summing up, the dynamic componential model of creativity emphasises how the processes of individual creativity and the process of organizational innovation influence each other. Therefore, a culture of creativity must have both. The processes of individual creativity will be elaborated on in the next chapter, centred around the question: “How can you become more creative?”.

Creativity cultures in teams and organizations

In this section, we continue discussing the organizational characteristics that influence creativity, looking at examples from Aalto University.

---

Clarity of goals, innovation as value, support for exploration, resource availability, task autonomy, work meaning, collaboration and open idea flow. These are some requirements of organizational innovation according to Amabile and Pratt (2016). These elements can be either enabled or inhibited by managerial behaviour, especially the behaviour of immediate supervisors. Even in an organization that fears creativity, immediate managers could create a team culture conducive to creativity for each member.

 

Organizational innovation component	Creativity enablers	Creativity inhibitors
Motivation to innovate	Clarity in organizational goals Value on innovation Support for justified risk-taking and exploration	Unclear or changing organizational goals Disinterest in new initiatives Attachment to the status quo
Resources availability around performance	Sufficient resources, such as materials, funds, infrastructures, facilities, and the right personnel. Sufficient time but not too much time.	Insufficient resources Insufficient or surplus of time
Skills in innovation management	Clear project goals Autonomy on how to work on the project goals Support and constructive feedback on new ideas Work tasks fit the individuals’ skills and interests Fair and generous reward and recognition for creative efforts Learning from problems Collaboration and coordination between groups Open idea flow	Unclear or shifting project goals  Constraints on how to work on project goals Superficial evaluation of new ideas Making work difficult Ignoring or overreacting to problems A competitive environment Restricted idea flow

Figure 1.2.2: Elements of work environment for creativity

Smart Bubbles is the start-up project which resulted from Hedar Al-Terke’s research question: “What if microbubbles can last up to an hour?”  Previously, injectable microbubbles were known to last less than ten minutes in the bloodstream. Hedar started to see the entrepreneurial potential in his research when he worked as a teaching assistant in a project course combining entrepreneurial mindset and skills with engineering design taught by Aalto Lecturer Janne Halme. In his interview, Hedar said the following:

“I realized I was in a position to solve real problems. There are others in this world who are not educated, who have had hard life circumstances. Through identifying the problem first—in this case, the lack of accessibility of cancer diagnostic technologies—I was then able to craft a meaningful solution that has the chance to make a lasting global impact.”

In the development of Smart Bubbles, we can see the following elements of a culture of creativity at three levels:

At an individual level, we can first notice Hedar’s motivation to choose to work on a project that gives him meaning, in the healthcare area. Second, we can notice Hedar’s willingness to learn more about functional interfaces for medical applications. Third, we can see his creative thinking ability in asking questions that challenge the status quo. What if the microbubbles lasted more than ten minutes in the bloodstream?

At the team level, we can see the supportive role of Hedar’s supervisor who encouraged Hedar to be creative in his research projects. We can also see from Hedar’s statement in the beginning of this article that he enjoys open collaboration with other colleagues who worked on the project.

At the organizational level we can notice the availability of sufficient funding, materials, infrastructure, and the right people to work on the chosen project. Also, there are innovation management skills such as autonomy to reach the project goals and support for testing new ideas – Janne Halme’s course.

The influence of the physical environment

The physical environment is the collection of fixed and adjustable materials (i.e., buildings, furniture, and resources) surrounding a human being.

---

In the case study’s talk, Tuomas also emphasized the importance of a living strategy that empowers a culture that allows for more time, space, and safety for creativity. One example of this at Aalto is Space 21, the new space concept on campus has been created for creative projects and experimentation.

Creativity researchers agree that physical environments that are designed to be cognitively and perceptually stimulating can enhance creativity through three possible paths (see Ceylan and Dul, 2022, Dul, 2019, Dul and Ceylan, 2011, Amabile et al., 1996):

• Functionality – the extent to which characteristics of the physical environment that are necessary for a person’s creative activities are perceived to be in place.
• Meaning – the symbolic significance embedded in the physical properties of the environment.
• Mood – the emotional responses to the physical items in the environment.

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution to experimentation spaces. The suitable physical environment depends on individual needs and the phase of the creative process.

We can also look beyond the human-centered lens to look through when we consider the development of organizational cultures in specific business contexts. For instance, Jammaers & Huopalainen (2023) urge organizational scholars to use a multispecies lens and take animal agency and labour seriously in the equine business.

Please choose one of the activities enumerated below and do it in real life. It must both have special meaning to you and be a new activity, something you’ve been thinking about doing but haven’t yet gotten the chance to do.

This is your chance to do it with creativity. How will you approach this activity creatively?

• Family Gatherings: Spending time with family members, celebrating milestones, or simply enjoying each other’s company while engaged in a fun activity.
• Cooking and Sharing Meals: Preparing and enjoying food together is not only about sustenance to you, but also about sharing, caring, and community.
• Music and Dance: Engaging in music and dance – whether you are creating it yourself or just appreciating it – is a way to express emotions, tell stories, and connect with others.
• Storytelling: Sharing stories, whether through oral traditions, books, films, or other media, is a powerful way for you to communicate values, lessons, and cultural heritage.
• Gardening and Connecting with Nature: Tending to plants and being in nature are activities that you find grounding and rejuvenating, providing a sense of connection to the Earth and the cycle of life.
• Sports and Physical Activities: You see participation in sports or physical activities not only beneficial for your health but also for building teamwork, to use your body creatively, or to give you a sense of accomplishment.
• Art and Craftsmanship: Creating art or engaging in crafts is a form of self-expression and creativity.
• Spiritual or Religious Practices: Engaging in spiritual/religious rituals and practices offers you a sense of purpose, community, and connection to something greater than yourself.
• Helping Others and Community Service: Acts of kindness and service to others bring you a deep sense of fulfilment and connection to the community.
• Continuous Learning and Education: The pursuit of knowledge, whether formal or informal, is a deeply meaningful activity that helps you grow and help your society advance.

In conclusion, in this subchapter, we covered the conditions that are necessary in a culture of creativity. There are three levels where social and physical elements of the environment can foster or inhibit creativity:

• At the individual level, individuals need to have a good mastery of their domain of specialization, creative thinking skills and inner drive to engage in a creative activity.
• At the team level, the dynamics must allow each team member autonomy to choose what tasks to perform, what to learn and how to reach the project goals.
• At the organizational level, there must be clarity in how the organizational values and strategies are implemented, support for exploration and experimentation and open flow communication of ideas.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184

Amabile, T. (2011). Componential theory of creativity (pp. 538-559). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.

Amabile, T.M., & Pratt, M.G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning, Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 36, Pages 157-183.

Ceylan, C., & Dul, J. (2022). The Place to Be: Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate for Creativity. In Homo Creativus: The 7 C’s of Human Creativity (pp. 137-171). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Dul, J. (2019). 23 The Physical Environment and Creativity. A Theoretical Framework, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Ed(s) James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Stenberg, pp. 481- 509.

Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12-20.

Jammaers, E., & Huopalainen, A. (2023). “I prefer working with mares, like women, difficult in character but go the extra mile”: A study of multiple inequalities in equine (sports) business. Gender, Work and Organization, 30(6), 2049-2068. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13044