Assessing Job Candidates' Creativity: Propositions and Future Research Directions

Assessing Job Candidates’ Creativity:Propositions and Future ResearchDirections

Anna Malakate, Constantine Andriopoulos andManto Gotsi

Identifying and selecting creative employees is of key importance in today’s high-pace busi-ness environment. Yet, little is known about how assessors in organizational settings evaluatethe creative potential of job candidates. In this paper we review the extant literature onindividual and team creativity in order to identify criteria (cues) against which job candidates’creativity could be assessed. We argue that the creative potential of job candidates could beevaluated against four key dimensions (the creative individual, the creative product, thecreative process and the creative environment) and call for empirical research to furtherexplore and test our propositions in practice.

Introduction

At the dawn of the 21st century organiza-tions are more eager than ever before to

sustain high levels of creative ability. Rapidtechnological advancements, shorter productlife-cycles and intense competition in thebusiness environment have propelled theimportance of creativity to unprecedentedheights (Amabile et al., 1996). Novel and use-ful ideas are, therefore, increasingly becom-ing a precious commodity and employeeswho generate them are sought-after resources(Andriopoulos, 2003).

In an attempt to identify creative individu-als, early studies have focused to a large extenton personal dispositions and other individualcharacteristics that may predict creativeachievement (MacKinnon, 1960, 1962; McDer-mid, 1965; Keller & Holland, 1978). Studieshave attempted to list personality correlates ofcreative productivity as well as to collect bio-graphical information that might predict latercreative behaviour. Research subsequentlymoved away from studying creativity solelyfrom the individual perspective and shifted toa greater recognition of contextual-situationalfactors that may enhance or prohibit indi-vidual and/or team creativity. For instance,contemporary researchers from different dis-

ciplines identify relationships between creativ-ity and innovation in organizational settingsand corporate strategy (Dougherty & Hardy,1996), leadership (Redmond, Mumford &Teach, 1993; Amabile et al., 1996), structure(Burns & Stalker, 1994), climate (Amabile &Gryskiewicz, 1989), culture (Tushman &O’Reilly, 2002; Flynn & Chatman, 2004), feed-back (Farris, 1972) and resources (Nohari &Gulati, 1996).

Creativity is, therefore, increasingly viewedas a social phenomenon, often necessitatingteamwork in organizational settings (e.g.,Gilson & Shalley, 2004). In this respect, teamknowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) appearas key ingredients of creative achievement.Stevens and Campion (1999), for instance,argue that interpersonal and self-managementKSAs are critical correlates of creative perfor-mance. On the one hand, conflict resolution,collaborative problem solving and communi-cation are important interpersonal factorswhich distinguish a good teamworker from abad one. On the other hand, goal setting andperformance management together with plan-ning and task coordination knowledge, skillsand abilities make up the necessary self-management characteristics that creativeemployees should possess. Additionally, pre-vious experience in teams (Athanasaw, 2003;

ASSESSING JOB CANDIDATES’ CREATIVITY 307

Volume 16 Number 3 2007doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00437.x

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

Hartenian, 2003), the frequency in which indi-viduals have participated in teams (Athanasaw,2003) and collective orientation and co-operation (Hartenian, 2003) have also beenproposed as important factors when assessingcandidates’ team KSAs.

Interestingly, although recent studies high-light creativity assessment as a key antecedentto creative achievement (Bennis & Biederman,1997; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Robertson,Scarbrough & Swan, 2003), the need to assessthe creative potential of job candidates is thefinding rather than the focus of most extantstudies. Elsbach and Kramer’s (2003) seminalpaper in assessing the creative potential ofscreenwriters in Hollywood pitch meetingshas set the scene in this interesting field,yet writings in the area remain scarce. Thepurpose of this paper is, therefore, to reviewthe extant literature on individual and teamcreativity with the aim of identifying criteria(cues) against which job candidates’ creativepotential could be assessed. Based on our lit-erature review, we define creativity assess-ment and then discuss key dimensions andrelated elements for assessing job candidates’creativity. We develop relevant propositionsand then discuss future research directions.

Creativity Assessment

Based on the definition derived from Web-ster’s dictionary, to assess is ‘to estimate ordetermine the significance, importance, orvalue of something’ (Guralnik, 1970). Severalresearchers have identified the difficulty inrecognizing a creative person or product as the‘criterion problem’ (Taylor & Holland, 1964;Shapiro, 1972). Over the years, researchershave taken a bifurcated approach in tacklingthis problem: some focus on the creativeability of individuals based on their reputa-tion, others on the amount of times their workhas been cited in journals or books, generallyon the amount of work produced, or even onthe worldwide belief that the person (Stein,1974) or the product (Brodgen & Sprecher,1964) studied is creative. Personality traitshave long been identified as correlates of cre-ative achievement (MacKinnon, 1960, 1962),yet, within organizational settings, the interac-tionist view (e.g., Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin,1993) highlights complex person–contextinteractions at the team (e.g., Oldham &Cummings, 1996; Gilson & Shalley, 2004) andorganizational (e.g., Shalley, 1991, 1995) levelsas important elements that may support orhinder individuals’ creative output at work.Although assessors of job candidates may notbe able or willing to assess the effects of orga-

nizational factors (e.g., organizational culture,resources, reward systems) on individuals’creative output in previous posts (e.g., Quinn,1989; Amabile, 1998), assessing job candidates’knowledge, skills and abilities at the teamlevel is critical (Gilson & Shalley, 2004).Drawing from this framework, the followingliterature review of extant work on individualand team creativity highlights that individu-als’ creative achievement has been linked to:the creative person and the attributes he/shepossesses, his/her creative outcome and thecharacteristics which contribute in making aproduct creative, the process he/she followsin generating, evaluating and implementingnovel and useful ideas, and his/her knowl-edge of and influence on the wider creativeenvironment. We therefore define creativityassessment as processes through which asses-sors evaluate the creative potential of job can-didates based on cues related to individuals’personal dispositions, their creative output,the process(es) followed to reveal their creativ-ity, and their understanding of and influenceon the creative environment. Figure 1 depictsthe proposed conceptual model summarizingelements relevant to these four dimensionsthat can be used in assessing job candidates’creative potential. The following sectionsdiscuss each of these elements in detail.

The Creative Individual

The creative individual has been defined assomeone who ‘must dare to differ, makechanges, stand out, challenge traditions, makewaves, bend rules – and make mistakes andfail’ (Davis & Rimm, 1998, p. 36). Studies onindividual creativity have focused mainly onthe specific characteristics, which distinguishcreative from non-creative people (Oldham &Cummings, 1996; Simonton, 2000). Theseinvolve specific skills and attributes as well aspersonality traits assigned to creative indi-viduals. Most of the earlier studies empha-sized the importance of personality factorsas predictors of creative achievement (Mac-Kinnon, 1960, 1962; Torrance, 1962; Hall &MacKinnon, 1969). Taken as a whole, the mainpersonality traits that have been linked to cre-ative achievement include: risk-taking – the cre-ative individual’s willingness to take a standand challenge the status quo (Michael, 1979;Glassman, 1986; Sternberg, O’Hara & Lubart,1997; Davis & Rimm, 1998); self-confidence – thetendency to have a high regard of her/himself(MacKinnon, 1960; Buel, 1965); tolerance ofambiguity – the ability to acknowledge com-plexity and even disorder without becomingoverly anxious (MacKinnon, 1960); need for

308 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

achievement – creative people are generallyambitious individuals with an inner need toaccomplish a combination of personal and eco-nomic goals (MacKinnon, 1962; Buel, 1965)and, lastly, autonomy and non-conformity – thedesire towards autonomy in their work andsocial environment and a lack of concern forsocial norms (Buel, 1965; McDermid, 1965;Keller & Holland, 1978).

Another stream of research has focusedon specific cognitive processes assigned tocreative individuals. Writings in this fieldcomment on several features of cognitive style,which appear to be relevant to creativity. Themain cognitive abilities correlated with cre-ative achievement include: mental flexibility – acreative individual’s ability to break fromroutine constraints if s/he is to stay open andunblocked (Majaro, 1992) in order to createsome space for new problem-solving strategies(Taggar, 2002); remote associations – referring tothe ability to recognize similarities and makeassociations among elements or ideas in newways (Mednick, 1963; Koestler, 1964; Harga-don & Sutton, 1997, 2000); and, lastly, suspen-sion of judgement – creative individuals’ needto tolerate uncertainty and hold back fromaccepting the first possible solution that comesto mind so that they give their ideas time toflow (Majaro, 1992). A handful of studiesexhibit a clear relationship between individu-als’ cognitive processes and creative perfor-mance. More specifically, it was found thatindividuals high on such cognitive processesoften tend to achieve better results on mea-sures of the knowledge, skills and techniquesrequired for a job (Ree & Earles, 1996), and arebetter at processing information (Schmidt,Hunter & Pearlman, 1981).

Furthermore, motivation has been high-lighted as a distinguishing factor betweenwhat a creative individual can do and whatthey actually do (Amabile, 1990). Personalitytraits, cognitive factors and knowledgedirectly affect what one can do, but it is one’smotivation that determines the extent to whichone fully applies one’s skills in the creativeoutput (Amabile, 1997). Several contemporaryauthors in this area have shown the sig-nificance of intrinsic motivation to creativeachievement and have identified extrinsicteam and organizational constraints that mayundermine intrinsic motivation and creativity,such as: evaluation, surveillance, contracted-forreward, task constraint and competition (Collins& Amabile, 1999, p. 306). Studies have high-lighted that creative potential is maximizedwhen individuals are allowed to do somethingthat they really love (Runco & Chand, 1995;Amabile, 1997) and thus become immersedenough to be able to change it (Csikszentmi-halyi, 1999).

Finally, recent writings have also identifiedthat highly creative employees exhibit ahelping behaviour that mobilizes the genera-tion of new ideas and assists in problemsolving (Hargadon & Sutton, 2000; Robertsonet al., 2003). Organizations, nowadays, arefaced with complex problems, which requirethe collaboration of individuals with a diverserange of technical knowledge and skills.However, in creative settings, simply possess-ing the required individual skills and knowl-edge to do the job at hand is not enough.Rather, creative employees are required toexhibit a helping behaviour, such as assistingcolleagues with heavy workloads or providingconstructive suggestions when needed.

Figure 1. Criteria for Assessing Job Candidates’ Creativity

ASSESSING JOB CANDIDATES’ CREATIVITY 309

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

To sum up, studies have highlighted thatcreative individuals are characterized by a setof personality traits and cognitive abilities, aswell as by the urge to fulfil intrinsic needs andhelp others in team-based contexts. We arguethat these are key determinants in assessingjob candidates’ creativity and offer the follow-ing propositions:

Proposition 1a: The more a prospective candi-date is perceived to exhibit high levels of risk-taking, self-confidence, tolerance of ambiguity,need for achievement and autonomy, the mores/he will be regarded as creative by the assessor.

Proposition 1b: The more a candidate is per-ceived to exhibit high levels of mental flexibility,remote associations, suspension of judgement,and originality of ideas, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor.

Proposition 1c: The more a candidate is per-ceived to find their reward in the activity athand and less on external rewards and/or recog-nition, the more s/he will be regarded as creativeby the assessor.

Proposition 1d: The more a candidate is per-ceived as one who will show a helping behaviour(voluntarily helping others or making construc-tive suggestions), the more s/he will be regardedas creative by the assessor.

The Creative Product

When one assesses the creative potential of ajob candidate, it is also imperative to evaluateher/his creative output. Gollan (1963) stressesthe significance of studying creativity in termsof the product, an assessment method that iswidely utilized in technological and industrialsettings. Creative products can range fromnew theories, hypotheses, formulas and tech-niques, to machines, designs and materials(Taylor, 1959). Creative products show novelty(Brodgen & Sprecher, 1964; Runco, 1993;Amabile, 1995; Eysenck, 1997), are ‘adaptive toreality’ (Barron, 1955, pp. 478–9) and fulfil pre-existing needs (Jackson & Messick, 1973).Locke and Kirkpatrick (1995) also stress theimportance of domain-relevant knowledge tocreative output, arguing that creative discover-ies do not emerge full-blown, divorced fromany prior knowledge, through mysticalinsights or causeless intuitions. Based on thesestudies, we therefore, propose:

Proposition 2: The more a candidate’s outputis perceived to exhibit high levels of perceivednovelty, some form of utility and domain-relevant knowledge and skills, the more s/he willbe regarded as creative by the assessor.

The Creative Process

Rogers (1959, p. 71) defines the creativeprocess as ‘the emergence in action of a novelrelational product, growing out of the unique-ness of the individual on the one hand, and thematerials, events, people, or circumstances, ofhis life on the other’. The majority of extantstudies have focused on the processes peoplefollow in generating creative products (Drazin,Glynn & Kazanjian, 1999). Specifically, twomain processes appear to dominate creativework: creative processes focusing on the gen-eration of novel ideas (Osborn, 1963; Sutton &Hargadon, 1996) and processes focusing onthe evaluation (Runco & Chand, 1994) andimplementation of those generated ideas(Vincent, Decker & Mumford, 2002). The firstset of activities, generally speaking, focuses ondefining the problem (Okuda, Runco &Berger, 1991), followed by a collection of infor-mation in order to deepen one’s understand-ing of the problem at hand (Davidson &Sternberg, 1984). This, in turn, gives people theopportunity to connect disparate sources ofinformation based on which new ideas arethen developed (Rothenberg, 1996; Hargadon& Sutton, 1997, 2000). Creative achievementtherefore necessitates individuals to follow aprocess whereby they generate new ideas,evaluate these ideas against the parameters ini-tially set by the problem, and lastly implementactivities that allow them to translate theseideas into tangible products. We thereforepropose:

Proposition 3: The more a candidate is per-ceived to demonstrate occasions when initialdivergent thoughts were evaluated and modifiedto produce a better, more useable outcome, themore s/he will be regarded as creative by theassessor.

The Creative Environment

Creative individuals work within a commu-nity and therefore have to be in touch withdevelopments and beliefs of others in theirfield (Gruber & Wallace, 1999). Not surpris-ingly, general and domain-specific knowledgeare therefore elements commonly assessedwhen selecting among job candidates (Ulrichet al., 1995; Adobor, 2004; Palmer, Ziegenfuss& Pinsker, 2004). Knowledge of the cultural,economic, political and technological contextsof any given period plays a bifurcated role increative achievement: it firstly sparks ideasand therefore directly affects creative thinking,but it also transmits the cues that experts (gate-

310 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

keepers) use to judge products as novel anduseful (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Amabile,1995).

Furthermore, the environment in which cre-ative employees operate not only comprisespeople that create ideas, but also people whoact as judges of creative output (Kasof, 1995;Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1999). Creative workthus not only requires individuals to solve ill-defined or novel problems but also to commu-nicate the merits of their ideas to the expertdecision makers. In this respect, Dudeck andHall’s (1991) study with architects found thatpersuasive skills played a significant role intheir career progression as they were pres-sured to be involved in business developmentand to persuade clients about the merits oftheir proposals.

We therefore argue that exhibiting knowl-edge of the wider domain of knowledge, butalso demonstrating an ability to persuadeothers about the merits of creative outcomesare also indicators of job candidates’ creativity.

Proposition 4a: The more a candidate is per-ceived to be in touch with developments andbeliefs of others in their domain of knowledge asthe basis of proposing novel ideas that might notbe readily accepted, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor.

Proposition 4b: The more a candidate is per-ceived to demonstrate persuasive skills regard-ing their creative output in their domain ofknowledge, the more s/he will be regarded ascreative by the assessor.

Table 1 summarizes all aforementioned propo-sitions, against the four key dimensions (cre-ative individual, creative product, creativeprocess, creative environment) highlightedby the literature as correlates of creativeachievement.

Concluding Remarks and FutureResearch Directions

Drawing on extant literature, this paper hasoffered eight propositions in relation to fourkey dimensions that seem important whenassessing job candidates’ creativity. Theseinclude criteria related to the creative indi-vidual, his/her creative product, the creativeprocess that he/she follows, and his/herknowledge of and influence on the wider cre-ative environment.

The practical implications of our proposi-tions for the selection of creative employeesshould be highlighted. First, firms shouldidentify creative talent by assessing potential

candidates’ profile in the areas identified.Assessors have to focus on screening potentialcandidates based on their dispositional factors,cognitive skills, intrinsic motivation, taskexpertise, divergent thinking and their abilityto stay in touch with and influence develop-ments in their respective fields. Second, wecan provide some guidelines on how assessorscan actually go about selecting suitable cre-ative talent, although the multiplicity of mea-sures available highlights the difficulty inscreening job candidates’ creativity in practice.Job candidates’ dispositional factors could beidentified through the use of psychologicaltests, such as the Adjective Check List (Gough& Heilbrun, 1965) and the Sixteen PersonalityFactor Questionnaire (Cattell & Butcher, 1968).Similarly, cognitive abilities and job candi-dates’ intrinsic motivation levels may be mea-sured against the Plot Titles Test (Berger &Guilford, 1969) and Amabile’s (1985) instru-ment, respectively. Moreover, candidates’ atti-tude toward team activities may be measuredthrough Hage and Aiken’s (1969) Participatingin Decision Making instrument and Jehn’s(1995) Shared Goals three-item scale. In termsof assessing candidates’ creative product,assessors may use instruments such as theCreative Product Semantic Scale (White, Shen& Smith, 2002). Additionally, in terms of thecreative process, assessors may evaluate candi-dates using the ‘critical incident technique’(Flanagan, 1949). Through interviews, asses-sors may identify candidates’ creative problemsolving approach against incidents that havetaken place in their previous posts. Divergentthinking may be also measured in more detailthrough specific instruments. For example,‘The Alternate Uses Tests’ (Christensen et al.,1960) can be used to test candidates’ ability topresent as many solutions to a problem as pos-sible. Finally, Spreitzer et al.’s (1997) instru-ment can be used to identify candidates’industry knowledge. There is substantialsupport in the literature for the notion that theacquisition and use of external information iscritical in creative endeavours (Ancona &Caldwell, 1992; Dougherty & Hardy, 1996).Similarly, authors place importance on candi-dates’ ability to influence the creative develop-ments in their own respective fields not onlywithin their group, but also towards expertdecision makers external to the group. Theseskills may be assessed through interviewing.For instance, candidates’ involvement in pro-fessional meetings and industry conferencesand their contribution to industry or academicpress may indicate candidates with persuasionskills.

The future of research in assessing job can-didates’ creative potential holds many exciting

ASSESSING JOB CANDIDATES’ CREATIVITY 311

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

Table 1. Assessing Job Candidates’ Creativity: Research Propositions

Propositions Dimensions Criteria

1a. The more a prospective candidate isperceived to exhibit high levels ofrisk-taking, self-confidence, tolerance ofambiguity, need for achievement andautonomy, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor

Creative individual • Risk-taking• Self-confidence• Tolerance of ambiguity• Need for achievement• Autonomy

1b. The more a candidate is perceived toexhibit high levels of mental flexibility,remote associations, suspension ofjudgement, and originality of ideas, themore s/he will be regarded as creativeby the assessor

Creative individual • Mental flexibility

• Remote associations

• Suspension of judgement

• Originality of ideas

1c. The more a candidate is perceived tofind their reward in the activity at handand less on external rewards and/orrecognition, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor

Creative individual • Intrinsic motivation

1d. The more a candidate is perceived asone who will show a helping behaviour(voluntarily helping others or makingconstructive suggestions), the more s/hewill be regarded as creative by theassessor

Creative individual • Collective orientationand problem-solving

2. The more a candidate’s output isperceived to exhibit high levels ofperceived novelty, some form of utilityand domain-relevant knowledge andskills, the more s/he will be regarded ascreative by the assessor

Creative product • Novelty

• Domain-relevantknowledge

3. The more a candidate is perceived todemonstrate occasions when initialdivergent thoughts were evaluated andmodified to produce a better, moreuseable outcome, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor

Creative process • Divergent, innovativethinking

4a. The more a candidate is perceived to bein touch with developments and beliefsof others in their domain of knowledgeas the basis of proposing novel ideasthat might not be readily accepted, themore s/he will be regarded as creative bythe assessor

Creative environment • General knowledge

4b. The more a candidate is perceived todemonstrate persuasive skills regardingtheir creative output in their domain ofknowledge, the more s/he will beregarded as creative by the assessor

Creative environment • Persuasive skills

312 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

new questions. First, although creativity theo-rists have generated hundreds of creativitytests,1 to date limited empirical research hasbeen conducted within organizational settingsapart from some rare exceptions (see, e.g.,Elsbach & Kramer, 2003). The first task intesting this article’s propositions is, therefore,to develop a reliable and valid measure forassessing candidates’ creativity as, at thispoint, no widely recognized measure exists.Developing a reliable measure presents aparticular challenge given the nature of theconstruct under consideration. The mainlimitation of the extant literature is that themajority of empirical studies in this realm (see,e.g., Sternberg, 1985) have looked at creativityassessment in controlled environments, suchas laboratories and classrooms (and thereforehave used students as either participants orjudges), rather than real-life situations. Thesestudies might therefore not offer reliable datawhich can be widely applied in organizations(Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).

A second direction for future research oncreativity assessment in organizational set-tings may focus on identifying and document-ing the specific activities that organizationsuse for selecting the most creative job candi-dates. Although a number of different viablestrategies have been identified for assessing aperson’s creative ability and fit in the organi-zation, including panel interviews (Robertsonet al., 2003), giving relevant presentations toexisting staff (Bennis & Biederman, 1997) orpitching ideas before expert decision makers(Elsbach & Kramer, 2003), we argue thatin-depth studies of such activities may deepenour understanding in the area. Yet, futureresearch needs to take into consideration theoften complicated relationship between theassessor and the job candidate. In practice,assessors often report that one can only assesswhat they can observe (e.g., work experience,credentials, etc.) rather than the ‘wholeperson’ (including elements such as self-reliance, interpersonal sensitivity, etc.) (Brown& Hesketh, 2004). Moreover, issues of like-ability may affect the assessment process.Assessors, for instance, may prefer to hireemployees who share similarities with them(for instance, graduates of the same university,or common interests) (Schmitt, 1976; Howard& Ferris, 1996). Such a practice contradicts theview that creative organizations should strive

to ensure diversity in the workplace (Sutton,2002). Future studies may, therefore, also focuson extending extant findings (see, e.g., Elsbach& Kramer, 2003) on the specific judgementalprocesses that decision makers use whenassessing job candidates’ creative potential.

There are also several important method-ological issues that need to be taken intoaccount in future research. For instance, a lon-gitudinal study within various organizationalsettings may show the relationship of differentselection strategies to creativity and innovationlevels. Furthermore, different research designsmay enable triangulation. For instance, actionresearch or ethnographic approaches couldenable researchers to observe the dynamiccontext in which creativity assessment occursin practice. Likewise, survey studies mayallow generalization and offer researchersgreater control of confounding variables (e.g.,creativity assessment criteria and selectionmethods).

We choose to end on an optimistic note. Inour opinion, this an exciting time for research-ers in this area. Although research on the topicof creativity assessment has increased dra-matically over the past decade, it still fails toconsider the dynamic interaction between thejob candidate and the expert decision maker.The difficulty in assessing job candidates’ cre-ativity may focus organizational attention onthe different criteria against which job candi-dates should be assessed and the viablemethods for selecting the most creative jobcandidates in work settings.

References

Adobor, H. (2004) Selecting Management Talent forJoint Ventures: A Suggested Framework. HumanResource Management Review, 14, 161–78.

Amabile, T.M. (1985) Motivation and Creativity:Effects of Motivational Orientation on CreativeWriters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 48, 393–99.

Amabile, T.M. (1990) Within You, Without You: TheSocial Psychology of Creativity and Beyond. InRunco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories inCreativity. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 61–91.

Amabile, T.M. (1995) KEYS: Assessing the Climatefor Creativity. Centre for Creative Leadership,Greensboro, NC.

Amabile, T.M. (1997) Motivating Creativity in Orga-nizations: On Doing What You Love and LovingWhat You Do. California Management Review, 40,39–58.

Amabile, T.M. (1998) How to Kill Creativity.Harvard Business Review, 6, 76–87.

Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1989) The Cre-ative Environment Scales: The Work Environ-ment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2,231–54.

1 A full review of creativity tests and their validityis beyond the scope of this paper. We refer inter-ested readers to Kaltsounis & Honeywell (1980),Torrance & Goff (1989) and Cropley (2000), asuseful starting points.

ASSESSING JOB CANDIDATES’ CREATIVITY 313

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. andHerron, M. (1996) Assessing the Work Environ-ment for Creativity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 1154–84.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992) Bridgingthe Boundary: External Activity and Performancein Organizational Teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 37, 634–65.

Andriopoulos, C. (2003) Six Paradoxes in ManagingCreativity: An Embracing Act. Long Range Plan-ning, 36, 375–88.

Athanasaw, Y.A. (2003) Team Characteristics andTeam Member Knowledge, Skills and AbilityRelationships to the Effectiveness of Cross-Functional Teams in the Public Sector. Interna-tional Journal of Public Administration, 26, 1167–205.

Barron, F. (1955) The Disposition Toward Original-ity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,478–85.

Bennis, W., and Biederman, P.W. (1997) OrganizingGenius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Nicho-las Brealey Publishing, London.

Berger, R.M. and Guilford, J.P. (1969) Plot Titles.Sheridan Psychological Services, Beverley Hills,CA.

Brodgen, H.E. and Sprecher, T.B. (1964) Criteria ofCreativity. In Taylor, C.W. (ed.), Creativity:Progress and Potential. McGraw-Hill Inc, NewYork, pp. 155–76.

Brown, P. and Hesketh, A. (2004) The Mismanage-ment of Talent. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Buel, W.D. (1965) Biographical Data and the Identi-fication of Creative Research Personnel. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 49, 318–21.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1994) The Management ofInnovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cattell, R.B. and Butcher, H.J. (1968) The Prediction ofAchievement and Creativity. BobbsMerrill, NewYork.

Christensen, P.R., Guilford, J.P., Merrifield, P.R. andWilson, R.C. (1960) Alternate Uses (Form A). Sheri-dan Supply Co., Beverly Hills, CA.

Collins, M.A. and Amabile, T.M. (1999) Motivationand Creativity. In Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbookof Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, pp. 297–312.

Cropley, A.J. (2000) Defining and Measuring Cre-ativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using? RoeperReview, 23, 72–79.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and thePsychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCol-lins Publishers, New York.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999) Implications of aSystems Perspective for the Study of Creativity.In Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.313–28.

Davidson, J.E. and Sternberg, R.J. (1984) The Role ofInsight in Intellectual Giftedness. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 28, 58–64.

Davis, G.A. and Rimm, S.B. (1998) Education of theGifted and Talented. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Dougherty, D. and Hardy, B.F. (1996) SustainedInnovation Production in Large Mature Organi-zations: Overcoming Organization Problems.Academy of Management Journal, 39, 826–51.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1999)Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organi-zations: A Sense Making Perspective. Academy ofManagement Review, 24, 286–329.

Dudeck, S.Z. and Hall, W.B. (1991) Personality Con-sistency: Eminent Architects 25 Years Later. Cre-ativity Research Journal, 4, 213–32.

Elsbach, K.D. and Kramer, R.M. (2003) AssessingCreativity in Hollywood Pitch Meetings: Evi-dence for a Dual-Process Model of CreativityJudgements. Academy of Management Journal, 46,283–301.

Eysenck, H. (1997) Creativity and Personality. InSternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 297–312.

Farris, G.F. (1972) The Effect of Individual Role onPerformance in Innovative Groups. R&D Manage-ment, 3, 23–28.

Flanagan, J.C. (1949) Critical Requirements forResearch Personnel. American Institute forResearch, Pittsburgh, PA.

Flynn, F.J. and Chatman, J.A. (2004) Strong Culturesand Innovation: Oxymoron or Opportunity?’ InTushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (eds.), ManagingStrategic Innovation and Change: A Collection ofReadings, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 234–51.

Gilson, L.L. and Shalley, C.E. (2004) A Little Cre-ativity Goes a Long Way: An Examination ofTeams’ Engagement in Creative Processes.Journal of Management, 30, 453–70.

Glassman, E. (1986) Managing for Creativity: Backto Basics in R&D. R&D Management, 16, 175–83.

Gollan, S.E. (1963) Psychological Study of Creativ-ity. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 548–65.

Gough, H.G. and Heilbrun, A.B. (1965) The AdjectiveCheck List Manual. Consulting PsychologistsPress, Palo Alto, CA.

Gruber, H.E. and Wallace, D.B. (1999) The CaseStudy Method and Evolving Systems Approachfor Understanding Unique Creative People atWork. In Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativ-ity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.93–115.

Guralnik, D.B. (1970) Webster’s New World Dictio-nary of the American Language. The World Publish-ing Company, New York.

Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1969) Routine Technology,Social Structure, and Organizational Goals.Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 366–76.

Hall, W.B. and MacKinnon, D.W. (1969) PersonalityInventory Correlates of Creativity Among Archi-tects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 322–6.

Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) TechnologyBrokering and Innovation in a Product Develop-ment Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,716–49.

Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (2000) Building theInnovation Factory. Harvard Business Review,May–June, 157–66.

Hartenian, L.S. (2003) Team Member Acquisition ofTeam Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Team Per-formance Management, 9, 23–30.

Howard, J.L. and Ferris, G.R. (1996) The Employ-ment Interview Context: Social and SituationalInfluences on Interviewer Decisions. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 26, 112–36.

314 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

Jackson, P.W. and Messick, S. (1973) The Person, theProduct and the Response: Conceptual Problemsin the Assessment of Creativity. In Bloomberg, M.(ed.), Creativity: Theory and Research. College andUniversity Press, Connecticut.

Jehn, K.A. (1995) A Multimethod Examination ofthe Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Con-flict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–82.

Kaltsounis, B. and Honeywell, L. (1980) Instru-ments Useful in Studying Creative Behavior andCreative Talent. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14,56–67.

Kasof, J. (1995) Explaining Creativity: The Attribu-tional Perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8,311–66.

Keller, R.T. and Holland, W.E. (1978) A Cross Vali-dation Study of the Kirton Adaption-InnovationInventory in Three Research and DevelopmentOrganizations. Applied Psychological Measurement,2, 563–70.

Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation. Dell, NewYork.

Locke, E.A. and Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1995) PromotingCreativity in Organizations. In Ford, C.M. andGioia, D.A. (eds.), Creative Action in Organizations:Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices. Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 115–20.

McDermid, C.D. (1965) Some Correlates of Creativ-ity in Engineering Personnel. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 49, 14–19.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1960) Genvs Architectvs CreatorVarietas Americanvs. AIA Journal, September,31–35.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1962) The Nature and Nurture ofCreative Talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484–95.

Majaro, S. (1992) Managing Ideas for Profit – The Cre-ative Gap. McGraw-Hill, London.

Mednick, S.A. (1963) The Associative Bias of theCreative Process. In Bloomberg, M. (ed.), Creativ-ity: Theory and research. College and UniversityPress, Connecticut.

Michael, R. (1979) How to Find – and Keep – Cre-ative People. Research Management, September,43–45.

Nohari, K. and Gulati, S. (1996) Is Slack Good or Badfor Innovation. Academy of Management Journal,39, 799–825.

Okuda, S.M., Runco, M.A. and Berger, D.E. (1991)Creativity and the Finding and Solving of Real-World Problems. Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 9, 145–53.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996) EmployeeCreativity: Personal and Contextual Factors atWork. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–34.

Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied Imagination. Scribner’s,New York.

Palmer, K.N., Ziegenfuss, D.E. and Pinsker, R.E.(2004) International Knowledge, Skills and Abili-ties of Auditors/Accountants: Evidence fromRecent Competency Studies. Managerial AuditingJournal, 19, 889–96.

Quinn, J.B. (1989) Technological Innovation, Entre-preneurship, and Strategy. In Tushman, M.K.,O’Reilly, C. and Adler, D.A. (eds.), The Manage-ment of Organizations. Harper and Row, NewYork, pp. 549–81.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R.J.(1993) Putting Creativity to Work: Leader Influ-ences on Subordinate Creativity. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–51.

Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1996) Predicting Occupa-tional Criteria: Not Much More than g. In Dennis,I. and Tapsfield, P. (eds.), Human Abilities: TheirNature and Measurement. Erlbaum, New Jersey:NJ.

Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003)Knowledge Creation in Professional ServiceFirms: Institutional Effects. Organization Studies,24, 831–57.

Rogers, C.R. (1959) Toward a Theory of Creativity.In Anderson, H. (ed.), Creativity and its cultivation.Harper, New York.

Rothenberg, A. (1996) The Janusian Process in Sci-entific Discovery. Creativity Research Journal, 9,207–32.

Runco, M.A. (1993) Operant Theories of Insight,Originality and Creativity. American BehaviouralScientist, 37, 54–67.

Runco, M.A. and Chand, I. (1994) Problem Finding,Evaluative Thinking, and Creativity, In Runco,M.A. (ed.), Problem Finding, Problem Solving, andCreativity. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 40–76.

Runco, M.A. and Chand, I. (1995) Cognition andCreativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–67.

Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E. and Pearlman, K. (1981)Task Differences as Moderators of Aptitude TestValidity in Selection: A Red Herring. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 66, 166–85.

Schmitt, N.W. (1976) Social and Situational Determi-nants of Interview Decisions: Implications for theEmployment Interview. Personnel Psychology, 29,79–101.

Shalley, C.E. (1991) Effects of Productivity Goals,Creativity Goals, and Personal Discretion on Indi-vidual Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,179–85.

Shalley, C.E. (1995) Effects of Coaction, ExpectedEvaluation, and Goal Setting on Creativity andProductivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38,483–503.

Shapiro, R.J. (1972) The Criterion Problem. InVernon, P.E. (ed.), Creativity: Selected Readings.Penguin Books Ltd, UK.

Simonton, D.K. (2000) Creativity: Cognitive, Per-sonal, Developmental and Social Aspects. Ameri-can Psychologist, 55, 151–8.

Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W. and Mahoney, J.D.(1997) Early Identification of International Execu-tive Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,6–29.

Stein, M.I. (1974) Stimulating Creativity: IndividualProcedures. Academic Press, New York.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985) Implicit Theories of Intelli-gence, Creativity, and Wisdom. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–727.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1991) An Invest-ment Theory of Creativity and its Development.Human Development, 34, 1–31.

Sternberg, R.J., O’Hara, L.A. and Lubart, T.I. (1997)Creativity as Investment. California ManagementReview, 40, 8–21.

ASSESSING JOB CANDIDATES’ CREATIVITY 315

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999) StaffingWork Teams: Development and Validation of aSelection Test for Teamwork Settings. Journal ofManagement, 25, 207–28.

Sutton, R.I. (2002) Weird Ideas that Work: 111/2 Prac-tices for Promoting, Managing and Sustaining Inno-vation. Free Press, New York.

Sutton, R.I. and Hargadon, A. (1996) BrainstormingGroups in Context: Effectiveness in a ProductDesign Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,685–718.

Taggar, S. (2002) Individual Creativity and GroupAbility to Utilize Individual Creative Resources:A Multilevel Model. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 315–31.

Taylor, C.W. (1959) The Third (1959) University ofUtah Research Conference on the Identification of Cre-ative Talent. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Taylor, C.W. and Holland, J. (1964) Predictors ofCreative Performance. In Vernon, P.E. (ed.), Cre-ativity: Selected Readings. Penguin Books Ltd, UK.

Torrance, E.P. (1962) Guiding Creative Talent. Pren-tice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Torrance, E.P. and Goff, K. (1989) A Quiet Revolu-tion. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 136–45.

Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C. (2002) Winningthrough Innovation: A Practical Guide to LeadingOrganizational Change and Renewal. Harvard Busi-ness School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A.K. and Lake,D.G. (1995) Human Resource Competencies: AnEmpirical Assessment. Human Resource Manage-ment, 34, 473–95.

Vincent, A.H., Decker, B.D. and Mumford, M.D.(2002) Divergent Thinking, Intelligence, andExpertise: A Test of Alternative Models. CreativityResearch Journal, 14, 163–78.

White, A., Shen, F. and Smith, B.L. (2002) JudgingAdvertising Creativity using the CreativeProduct Semantic Scale. Journal of Creative Behav-ior, 36, 241–53.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W.(1993) Toward a Theory of Organizational Cre-ativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

Anna Malakate is a doctoral candidate atthe University of Aberdeen BusinessSchool. Her research focuses on assessingthe creative potential of job candidates.

Constantine Andriopoulos ([email protected]) is a Lecturerat Brunel Business School, Brunel Univer-sity, London. He received his PhD from theMarketing Department of the Universityof Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland. Hisresearch interests include ambidexterity inorganizations and managing paradoxesevident in the creative process.

Manto Gotsi is a Lecturer at Brunel Busi-ness School, Brunel University, London.Her PhD (Department of Marketing, Uni-versity of Strathclyde) explored the role ofservice employees in corporate brandmanagement. Her research interests focuson organizational identity and identifi-cation, corporate rebranding and changemanagement.

316 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 16 Number 3 2007© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing