Peak Creative Performance - ResearchDirect

Peak Creative Performance

John Carlisle

This thesis fulfils the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2014

University of Western Sydney, Australia

Table of contents 2

I List of tables 7

II List of figures 8

III List of charts 8

IV Appendices 9

V Dedication 10

VI Acknowledgements 11

VII Statement of authentication 12

VIII Abstract 13

IX Abbreviations and definitions 14

Chapter 1: Introduction 16

1.1 Overview 16

1.2 Background to research 16

1.3 Research rationale 18

1.4 Research aims and research question 22

1.5 Research benefits 24

1.5.1 Single field of inquiry 24

1.5.2 Definition of Peak Creative Performance 25

1.5.3 Theoretical sampling typology 26

1.5.4 Capable theoretical framework 27

1.5.5 Extended literature review 29

1.5.6 Identify pattern(s) producing Peak Creative Performance 30

1.5.7 Future research agenda 32

1.6 Outline of the thesis 32

1.7 Summary 33

Chapter 2: Literature review 34

2.1 Introduction 34

2.2 Historical overview 35

2.3 Traditional paradigm 35

2.3.1 Overview 35

2.3.2 Traditional conceptualisation 38

2.3.3 Illustration 39

2.3.4 Limitations 45

2.4 Current paradigm 46

2.4.1 Overview 46

2.4.2 Systems approach 49

2.4.3 Contextualism 50

2.4.4 Novelty and appropriateness 54

2.4.5 Emergence of a definable field 57

2.4.6 Current conceptualisation 61

2.4.7 Illustration 61

2.4.8 Limitations 67

2.5 Future paradigm 81

2.5.1 Overview 81

2.5.2 OST conceptualisation 82

2.6 Summary 84

Chapter 3: Methodology 87

3.1 Introduction 87

3.2 Ethics clearance 88

3.3 Validity and reliability considerations 89

3.4 Development of variables and codes 91

3.5 Sample frame-participant identification 97

3.6 Participant recruitment 104

3.7 Data gathering 106

3.8 Data analysis introduction 112

3.9 Performance-creativity analysis 115

3.10 Performer pattern analysis 117

3.11 Structural corroboration- performers 118

3.12 Observer pattern analysis 119

3.13 Structural corroboration: performers and observers 120

3.14 Summary of methodology 121

Chapter 4: Results 123

4.1 Introduction 123

4.2 Defining PCP 123

4.3 Performer patterns of PCP 130

4.3.1 Introduction 130

4.3.2 Profile of musician #1 131

4.3.3 Profile of musician #2 145

4.3.4 Profile of designer #1 155

4.3.5 Profile of designer #2 167

4.3.6 Profile of business person #1 179

4.3.7 Profile of business person #2 192

4.3.8 Analysis of performer data 204

4.3.9 Analysis by domain 206

4.3.10 Profile of the Peak Creative Performer 208

4.4 Observer patterns of PCP 209

4.4.1 Introduction 209

4.4.2 Causal path analysis 210

4.4.3 Observer data summary 213

4.5 Findings 218

4.5.1 Corroboration of performer and observer analyses 218

4.5.2 Analysis by domain 222

4.5.3 Summary 225

Chapter 5: Discussion and contributions 226


5.2 Research needs and aims 226

5.3 Definition of PCP 227

5.4 Key variables contributing to PCP 229

5.5 Patterns producing PCP 243

5.6 Model of PCP 248

5.6.1 Explaining PCP 248

5.6.2 A new understanding of the variables 250

5.6.3 A deeper understanding of the variables 256

5.7 Limitations of the research 262

5.6 Summary 264

Chapter 6: Conclusion 267


6.2 Synthesis of findings 269

6.2.1 How can PCP be defined? 269

6.2.2 What are the pattern(s) which produce PCP 270

6.2.3 How does innate contribute to the emergence of PCP? 270

6.2.4 What is the role of learned expertise? 270

6.2.5 Which aspects of personality are most significant? 270

6.2.6 What level and type of motivation is required? 270

6.2.7 Which organisational form contributes to PCP? 271

6.2.8 How do contextual factors contribute to PCP? 271

6.2.9 How do variables interact to produce PCP? 271

6.3 Conclusions 271

6.3.1 Definition of PCP 272

6.3.2 Pattern producing PCP 275

6.4 Recommendations 280

6.5 Summary 281

List of references 282

Appendices 354

I List of tables

Table 1: Paradigms of research 46

Table 2: Summary of variables 92

Table 3: Theoretical sample 101

Table 4: Data collection checklist 108

Table 5: Participation preparation sheet 110

Table 6: Relationship between performance and creativity 116

Table 7: Analysis of performance and creativity relationship 124

Table 8: Analysis of performance and creativity definitions 127

Table 9: Consolidated performance and creativity analysis 128

Table 10: Summary of performer scores 205

Table 11: Summary domain specific patterns of PCP 207

Table 12: Summary of observer data (person variables) 214

Table 13: Summary of observer data (organisation variables) 216

Table 14: Comparison of performer and observer patterns 219

Table 15: Comparison of performer and observer domain specific patterns 222

Table 16: Comparison of variables (this study and literature) 230

Table 17: Comparison of patterns of PCP (this study and literature) 244

Table 18: Explanation of variables and scales 361

Table 19: Performer data table 369

Table 20: Observer data table 370

Table 21: Observer correlation matrix 382

Table 22: Observer domain analysis 385

Table 23: Comparison of performer and observer patterns (business) 389

Table 24: Comparison of performer and observer patterns (music) 391

Table 25: Comparison of performer and observer patterns (design) 392

Table 26: PCP personality factors 419

Table 27: Summary of goal setting literature 431

Table 28: Factors contributing to ends pursued 436

Table 29: Factors contributing to motivational level 444

Table 30: Literature relevant to organisational functioning 453

Table 31: Characteristics of high performing groups 455

Table 32: Characteristics of creative groups 457

Table 33: Patterns of change 470

Table 34: Patterns within the chaos and complexity literature 472

Table 35: Processes linked with creativity 481

Table 36: Model of creativity 496

Table 37: Contrasting streams of research 503

Table 38: Linking theoretical framework and literature 519

II List of figures

Figure 1: Creativity framework 59

Figure 2: Causal path diagram 1 211



Figure 5: Pattern of PCP (This Study) 221

Figure 6: Framework for gaining a deeper understanding of PCP 258

Figure 7: Model of open system and directive correlation 506

Figure 8: OST model of behavioural preferences 513

Figure 9: Organisational design principles 515

III List of charts

Chart 1: Profile of M1: The person 135

Chart 2: Profile of M1: The organisation 141

Chart 3: Profile of M2: The person 147

Chart 4: Profile of M2: The organisation 152

Chart 5: Profile of D1: The person 157

Chart 6: Profile of D1: The organisation 163

Chart 7: Profile of D2: The person 169

Chart 8: Profile of D2: The organisation 174

Chart 9: Profile of B1: The person 181

Chart 10: Profile of B1: The organisation 186

Chart 11: Profile of B2: The person 195

Chart 12: Profile of B2: The organisation 200

IV Appendices

Appendix 1: Participant information sheet 354

Appendix 2: Participant consent form 357

Appendix 3: Framework of variables 361

Appendix 4: Performer data table 369

Appendix 5: Observer data table 370

Appendix 6: Observer correlation matrix 382

Appendix 7: Observer domain scores 383

Appendix 8: Observer domain analysis 389

Appendix 9: Nine perspectives on PCP 395

Appendix 10: Open Systems Theory 500

V Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my two children Bella-Jade and Egan, and my brother Stuart. It was

also written in memory of my parents Hazel and Jeff Carlisle. As far as I am aware, I am the first

and only person in my family to attend university at all, and I am hopeful that the completion of

this thesis and its contents provides some inspiration and guidance for my two children.

Six individuals inspired the writing of this thesis. During my twenties, I became interested in

systems and complexity theories, and the way in which Fred Emery and Merrelyn Emery were

re-designing organisations as jointly optimised Socio-Technical Systems. During my first job out

of university, Mr Grant Hamilton introduced me to the practical application of the Socio-

Technical Systems approach within the workplace. This experience, and the power of the

method to improve performance, gave me a sense of professional purpose. Shortly afterward, I

met Dr Grant Donovan who broadened my understanding of human performance and the

practice of enhancing performance outcomes in a workplace setting. During my early thirties, I

met Dr Ken Hudson who provided me with my first exposure to the study of creativity and its

application in a business context. I then began reading the work of Dr Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

in relation to ‘optimal experience’ (i.e. ‘flow’) and creativity, and this research provided the final

piece of the puzzle for me. Together these six individuals shaped my interest in Peak Creative

Performance and the use of systems theory to understand it.

VI Acknowledgements

I would like to thank four individuals for their professional assistance in preparing this thesis.

First and foremost, my supervisory panel; Dr David Wright and Dr Lesley Kuhn. I could not

have hoped for a more supportive panel. David has always provided direction, proactively

offered assistance and encouraged me to keep going during the more difficult periods of writing

the thesis. I am greatly indebted to him for all that he has done during my candidature. Lesley

has provided a much needed source of critical review and offered invaluable advice on thesis

formatting and structure. I would also like to thank Dr Vladimir Dimitrov who supported and

encouraged my application for doctoral candidature. I am deeply grateful to Vladimir for

guiding me through the initial stages of the PhD. Finally I would like to thank Dr Merrelyn

Emery, whom I initially approached as participant, but who became an advisor on a range of

issues as well as proofing many drafts and offering extensive support and advice regarding data

analysis and the use of Open Systems Theory as a theoretical framework. I cannot adequately

articulate how appreciative I am of Merrelyn’s support and advice.

In addition to these four individuals, there are two groups of people without whom, this thesis

would not have been possible. I am enormously grateful to the individuals who accepted the

invitation to participate in this study. These participants, not only allowed this thesis to be

written, they also made the process of writing the thesis an unforgettable experience for me.

Finally, I am indebted to the staff at UWS. This thesis could not have been written without the

incredible support provided by UWS and the people who work there. I am eternally grateful for

it.

VII Statement of authentication

I certify that the work in this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree at any other

institution. I also certify that this thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in

my research work and in the preparation of the thesis has been acknowledged. In addition, I

certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Participant

quotes included in this thesis have been cited verbatim, subject to minor editing for clarity and

to conceal and protect the identity of the participants.

Information in this thesis may contain the intellectual property of professional performance

coaches or elite performers. Permission to use this information has been granted to the author

by these individuals and their organisations for the purpose of conducting this research and its

publication. Permission for the use or copying of the information contained in this thesis must

be obtained from each of the intellectual property owners and copyright permission must be

obtained from John Carlisle.

This research has been undertaken with assistance from a number of people and organisations,

however, the information and views contained in this study do not necessarily, or at all, reflect

the views of information held by these people or organisations.

Signature of candidate

……………………… ………………………

John Carlisle

© J Carlisle, 2014

VIII Abstract

Terms such as peak performance, creativity, genius, intelligence and eminence have, for more

than one hundred years, been used to describe people who change the world. The literature

which exists today is fragmented; difficulties exist regarding the definition of the concepts which

are used and the ways in which these concepts relate to each other. Furthermore, at a time when

performance and creativity are becoming increasingly important, there is no adequate

explanation of how high levels of performance and creativity are achieved. Much of the existing

literature explains performance and creativity in terms of isolated variables, such as general

intelligence. Several recent studies have, however, made important advances by using a systems

approach to examine topics such as creativity and prodigiousness. Notwithstanding the

advances made by these studies, they are preliminary studies (i.e. in terms of their scope, and the

theoretical frameworks and the methodologies which are used) which are relatively few in

number.

Research is needed which clearly defines the concepts being used, synthesises the existing

literature and then utilises an established theoretical framework and methodology to identify the

ways in which various biological, psychological, social and contextual influences interact to

produce Peak Creative Performance (PCP). The primary aim of this study is, therefore, to

identify the pattern(s) which produce PCP. In achieving this aim, the present study sheds light

on several supplementary matters including the definition of PCP, the role of innate ability, the

importance of learned expertise, behavioural preference and personality, motivation level and

type, the organisational form which is most conducive to PCP, the role of contextual influences

and the ways in which each of these variables interact to produce PCP.

The present study builds upon systems research into creativity and prodigiousness, consensual

methods for defining creativity, and the theoretical framework and methodology employed by

‘Open Systems Theory’ (OST). Qualitative case studies are used in conjunction with quantitative

causal path analysis to examine interview data from six participants who are regarded as

unambiguous cases of PCP (referred to as ‘Performers’), and twenty four individuals who act as

advisors to ‘Performers’ (referred to as ‘Observers’). It is argued that the Peak Creative

Performer is an individual who is able to introduce novel methods, and convince experts within

their field that such methods transcend existing limitations. The study finds that the highest

levels of human achievement (PCP) require expert performance as well as creativity. Moreover,

PCP is found to occur when twelve variables come together in a particular pattern during the

course of the Peak Creative Performer’s lifetime

IX Abbreviations and definitions

The term ‘Peak Creative Performance’ (PCP) is defined within Section 2.4.5. For the purpose of

establishing a working definition (i.e. the definition to be used throughout the literature review),

PCP occurs when an individual of adult age, is recognised by experts in a domain (Feldman,

Csikszentmihalyi & Gardner, 1994) as being an expert performer who has made a novel and

appropriate contribution which has fundamentally transformed the domain. The building blocks

of this definition are drawn from Feldman et al.’s (1994) notion of ‘field’ and ‘domain’, Ericsson

et al.’s (2006) conceptualisation of the ‘expert performer’, and Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997)

definition of creative work as being contextually ‘novel and appropriate’.

In order to avoid repetition, the acronym ‘PCPer’ will be used to refer to an individual Peak

Creative Performer. The acronym ‘PCPers’ will be used when referring to more than one Peak

Creative Performer. The term, ‘PCP literature’, will be used when referring to the wide range of

literature examining creativity, eminence, prodigiousness, intelligence and expertise. The

rationale for referring to this literature under one heading is outlined in Section 2.4.5. Deviation

from this practice, in favour of reference to specific concepts such as ‘creativity’, will be used

only when necessary relevant and useful to the material being discussed.

This study discusses several definitions of the environment: (a) The ‘Open Systems Theory’

(OST) definition (see Appendix 10), (b) Feldman, et al’s. (1994) definition of ‘domain’ and

‘context’, and (c) Simonton’s (1999) concept of ‘zeitgeist’. Open Systems Theory conceptualises

the environment in a specific way. It does this by defining the system, the relevant environment

for this system (i.e. the immediate task environment and the extended social field), and the ways

in which the system and the environment co-evolve. Feldman et al. (1994) define the ‘domain’

as “the structure and organisation of a body of knowledge evolved to contain and express

certain distinct forms of information” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 16), and the ‘field’ as the “the

social and cultural aspects of a profession, job or craft” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 16) (i.e. the

network of social actors who are deemed to be experts in the domain, and who are charged with

vetting the entry of others into the domain). The concept of ‘zeitgeist’ refers to the ‘spirit of the

times’. The ‘zeitgeist’ describes the ways in which features of various historical periods differ.

Each of these terms are used interchangeably during the literature review. Open Systems Theory

definitions of ‘system’ and ‘environment’ are, however, utilised to conduct the present study.

Chapter 1: Introduction

John Carlisle: Peak Creative Performance 16


1.1 Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to orientate the reader to the thesis. The chapter provides an

overview of the central issues surrounding the topic of Peak Creative Performance (PCP). This

is followed by an introduction to the aims and objectives of the study. The justification for the

study is then outlined, and a rationale for the proposed theoretical framework and methodology

is provided. The chapter closes with a brief overview of the research findings, an overview of

the format of the thesis, and a summary of the contents of each chapter.

1.2 Background to research

The topics of performance and creativity have been of interest since Aristotle, and an areas of

scientific investigation for over one hundred years (Galton, 1869). Performance and creativity

play an important role in human survival (Albert, 1992; Eysenck, 1995), they contribute to our

sense of well-being (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), and they make an important contribution to

technological and scientific development, diffusion and advancement (Emery & Oezer, 1958;

Kuhn, 1970; Hargadon, 2003; Von Hippel, 2005; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Canton, 2007).

Notwithstanding its importance, Feldman et al. (1994) argue that creativity is a topic which is

under-represented in social science research, and, according to Mackinnon (1992), performance

and creativity are “one of the least understood phenomena in the whole field of human

behaviour” (Mackinnon, 1992, p. 180).

The evolution of performance and creativity research can be divided into six broad phases

(which are categorised into three paradigms; ‘traditional’, ‘current’, and ‘future’, in Chapter 2).

The first phase involved the usage of rudimentary physiological tests (Galton, 1869), however

this quickly evolved into a second phase which examined the relationship between general

intelligence, eminence and creativity (Galton, 1869; Binet, 1915; Spearman, 1923; Terman &

Oden, 1959). The third phase focused on creative processes such as problem solving (Wallas,

1926), and the role of insight (Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947; Guilford, 1967). The fourth phase

turned attention toward the identification of the personality traits possessed by eminent or

creative individuals (MacKinnon, 1978). The fifth phase used cognitive experimental studies to

understand the neurobiology of creative work (including the examination of topics such as brain

modularity (Gazzaniga, Ivry & Mangun 2002; Cosmides & Tooby, 2003), neuroplasticity

(Ericsson, 1996; Ramachandran, Blakeslee & Sacks, 1999), and the role of horizontal associative



hierarchies (Martindale, 1999)). During the sixth and present phase, the study of performance

and creativity has utilised a systems based approach to examine the interaction between

biological, psychological, social and contextual influences (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Wallace &

Gruber, 1989; Feldman et al., 1994; Dacey & Lennon, 1998). The sixth phase has been

described by Feldman et al. (1994) as a new paradigm for the study of performance and

creativity. The new paradigm introduces at least three new features: (a) a systems perspective

(Feldman et al., 1994) (which recognises performance and creativity as a ‘complex’ or

‘syndrome’ (Engel, 1977; Runco, 2006)), (b) a contextual approach (Pepper, 1942; Feldman et

al., 1994), and (c) the use of a consensual definition (Amabile, 1983, 1996).

Developments in the performance and creativity literature have been paralleled by progress in

the organisational performance and innovation literature. The evolution of this second stream of

research can be divided into four phases (which are also categorised into the three paradigms

outlined in Chapter 2). The first phase commenced with economic studies (such as the theory of

the firm (Moss, 1984; Spulber, 2009)), the examination of business cycles and the development

of long wave economic theory (Schumpeter, 1939; Gordon, Edwards & Reich, 1982; Freeman,

1977; 1983, Kondratiev, Daniels & Snyder, 1984), and the introduction of scientific

management (Taylor, 1911). This was followed by a second phase; the human relations

movement (Mayo, 1949; Herzberg, 1959; 1987), and a third phase; the introduction of Socio-

Technical Systems theory (Trist, Higgin, Murray & Pollock, 1959; Emery, 1977). In recent years,

an eclectic mix of research studies have examined management and organisational behaviour

(Weber, 1964; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994; Mullins, 2004; Brooks, 2009), high commitment work

systems (Walton, 1985) and high performance teams (Henderson & Walkinshaw, 2002).

According to Feldman et al. (1994) and Runco (2006), one of the features of this eclectic and

multidisciplinary body of literature, is that problems which may logically be studied by the field

of creativity are investigated by different fields using different names depending on the

background of the researcher. For instance, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) finds that “in economics

and business, creative processes are referred to as entrepreneurship, in sociology as

innovation...only in psychology and education is creativity the term of choice”

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 154). Consequently, the literature examining performance and

creativity is voluminous and eclectic and suffers from definitional problems which have

hampered the progress of research (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 9).

Methodologically, the majority of studies examining performance and creativity have adopted a

positivist orientation and have been relatively narrow in their research focus as a consequence

(Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). According to Feldman et al. (1994),

“there are thousands of psychological studies concentrated in just one of these cells; the



quantitative, empirical approach to individual traits” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 154). Similarly Dai

(2010) argues that, historically, studies of performance and creativity have been “predicated on

the assumption of objectivity, quantifiability, and generalizability of psychological traits,

processes and events” (Dai, 2010, p. 137). Furthermore, Mackinnon (1992) argues that

psychology has tended to focus on “simple problems (and) partial responses...for...which

manageable techniques...(are) available...rather than upon man as a whole... It... (has) not (been)

particularly concerned with the total complexly motivated individual” (Mackinnon, 1992, p.

179). Typically these studies have preferred to use analytical methods such as regression analysis

and factor analysis to identify individual causal variables (Eysenck, 1995). In response, Magyari-

Beck (1976) proposed a matrix which outlines up to forty eight possible research directions

including four levels (person, group, institution and culture), three manifestations (trait, process

and product), and two methodological options (quantitative and qualitative).

The systems-based studies of Wallace and Gruber (1989), Feldman and Goldsmith (1991),

Gardner (1993), Feldman et al. (1994), and Csikszentmihalyi (1997), have established the first

steps toward integrating the literature, resolving definitional difficulties and broadening the

methodological approaches used. Taken together, the systems studies of Feldman et al. (1994),

the bio-psycho-social studies conducted by Findlay and Lumsden (1988) and Dacey and Lennon

(1998), and the integrated perspective offered by Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) and

Pershing (2006), provide the first indications that the eclectic and multi-disciplinary body of

literature dealing with performance and creativity may be appropriately regarded as a single field

of research. The frameworks, typologies and methods used by these studies have also proven to

be a fruitful first step toward the identification of patterns which cut across traditionally discrete

disciplines.

1.3 Research rationale

Wallace and Gruber (1989), Feldman et al. (1994), Eysenck (1995), Sternberg (1997), Von

Hipple (2005), Sawyer (2006) and Runco (2006) have identified a wide range of research needs.

Notwithstanding the progress made by recent systems studies, Feldman et al. (1994) and Runco

(2006) regard the most pressing research needs to be: (a) the resolution of definitional

difficulties, (b) the integration and organisation of the literature, (c) the identification of patterns

between biological, psychological, social and contextual variables, (d) the extension of recent

systems approaches, (e) extension of the range of methodological approaches used, and (f) the

development of an adequate explanation for performance and creativity.



In addition to the research needs outlined above, Feldman et al. (1994) identify the need to

resolve definitional difficulties which exist in the economics, business, education and

sociological literature examining topics such as expertise, entrepreneurship, giftedness and

innovation. Often these definitional difficulties result from the overlapping nature of the

concepts used by different research disciplines. At least nine research needs exist in relation to

the definition of performance and creativity: (a) determining the degree to which performance

and creativity should be measured by expert consensus or objective criteria (Amabile, 1996;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), (b) clarifying the relationship between precociousness, expertise and

creativity (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich & Hoffman, 2006), (c)

understanding the relationship between ‘masters’ and ‘makers’ (Gardner, 1993), (d) defining the

various types of performance and creativity (i.e. product, performance, improvisation) (Runco,

2006), (e) clarifying the relationship between ‘big C’ and ‘little c’ creativity (Csikszentmihalyi,

1997), (f) determining whether PCP should be defined in terms of ‘potential’ or ‘achievement’

(Dai, 2010), (g) clarifying the relationship between ‘practical intelligence’, performance, creativity

and ‘wisdom’ (Sternberg, 2007), (h) identifying the relationship between individual and group

PCP, and (i) the establishment of definitions which are based on functional concepts and a logic

of relations (Ackoff & Emery, 1972; Emery, 2000).

According to Kuhn (2008), research is never a neutral enterprise; it is always guided by

assumptions. Moreover, according to Emery (1999a), the choice of orientation in the social

sciences is more fraught because of its intangibility. Failure to make conscious choices among

the assumptions and concepts that are used, or to choose assumptions that fit with the

observable behaviour of human beings, has significant implications (Chein, 1972; Emery,

1999a). Furthermore, according to Jaques (1951), Chein (1972) and Emery (1977), the more

general concern that exists within the social sciences is that there is an eclectic mix of

incompatible concepts and assumptions being used which are producing little in terms of the

accretion of knowledge. In the field of PCP, it would appear that the combined effects of multi-

disciplinary research, the haphazard use of concepts and theoretical orientations, and a range of

definitional difficulties, have produced a body of literature which is fragmented and

compartmentalised. Research into performance and creativity rarely references studies which are

conducted by other disciplines and comparability between studies is problematic. Recognising

these difficulties, Feldman et al. (1994) have sought to develop an integrated theoretical

framework to guide performance and creativity research. Notwithstanding these efforts, there is

a general recognition (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006) that no adequate

theoretical frameworks exist. The literature is, therefore, difficult for researchers to access and

the lack of integration (outlined above) appears to have hampered the development of

knowledge about PCP (Feldman et al., 1994; Emery, 2000). Illustrating this state of affairs,

Feldman et al. (1994) argue that:



What has been true of this line of work is that it has failed to provide a coherent set of

generalisations about the nature of great creativity and how it occurs. The field of

creativity is rich with examples from the lives of remarkable individuals, but lacks a

framework for approaching the many issues that arise when trying to make more

general sense of the data (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 2).

Notwithstanding the research conducted by Findlay and Lumsden (1988), and Dacey and

Lennon (1998), few studies have sought to examine the wide range of biological, psychological,

social and contextual variables which contribute to PCP. Even fewer studies have sought to

understand the ways in which these variables interact. Engel (1977), Capra (1992) and Emery

(1999a) argue that many social science studies adopt a reductionist and closed system

orientation; meaning, that they do not recognise the existence of an environment or the

transaction between individuals and their environment. Pepper (1942) made the distinction

between two worldviews; ‘Mechanicism’ and ‘Contextualism’. According to Emery (1999a),

contextualism deals with systems in their environment. In contrast, mechanicism assumes that

the universe is comprised of physical building blocks, and that such a universe can be

understood using positivist (i.e. reductionist) methodologies. Eysenck (1995) illustrates the

traditional preference for mechanicism in the following statement:

This approach may be contrasted with that adopted by psychologists who adopt the

idiographic approach...in which each creative person and his environment is looked

upon as a unique configuration of characteristics that cannot be ‘decontextualised’ into

measurable variables. What this means is apparently that this process of interacting

within an evolving system may bring about changes in the constituent characteristics.

This of course makes the system untestable: it shares the major fault of all idiographic

theories...Indeed we would have to abandon all psychological terms and concepts

which allow us to compare individuals (Eysenck, 1995, p. 7).

The preference for mechanicism has meant that a great deal is known about the measurement of

concepts such as intelligence and personality, however surprisingly little is known about how

PCP actually occurs (Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Feldman et al., 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997;

Sternberg, 1999; Runco, 2006). There is, therefore, a need to broaden the study of PCP (beyond

the qualitative examination of psychological variables) to identify the ways in which biological,

psychological, social and contextual factors interact. Moreover, Feldman et al. (1994) have



argued that efforts should be made to ‘chart the waters’ by identifying the patterns among ‘key’

variables before engaging further in more narrowly focused research.

There are at least three trends which highlight the importance of the research needs identified

above: Firstly, there is the emergence of the ‘innovation economy (Canton, 2007), the

‘experience economy’ (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), and the ‘turbulent field’ environment (Emery,

1977; Emery, 1999a). These changes demand greater creativity and performance from

organisations and their employees (Stamp, 1995; Peters, 2006; Nordstrom & Ridderstrale, 2007),

and according to Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a), this will also require fundamental changes to

organisational structures and management practices. Moreover, Cutler (2008) argues that

Australia must take steps to enhance its ‘national innovation system’. Secondly, there are

growing concerns about sustainability (Lovelock, 1979; Flannery, 2005; Dunphy & Benveniste,

2000; Power & Schulkin, 2009). Efforts to improve sustainability may mean that increasingly

creative solutions are needed to deal with issues such as population growth, the development of

renewable energy sources, the prevention of further environmental damage, and the

simultaneous enhancement of the quality of human life. Finally, according to Capra (1992),

individuals and policy makers are encountering increasingly complex problems which cannot be

solved using traditional methods. Ackoff (1974) describes these as ‘messes’ of problems which,

because of their apparent intractability, require greater creativity and different modes of thinking

to develop effective solutions. Echoing each of these three themes, Dacey and Lennon (1998)

argue that:

Throughout human history, our most valued ability has been intelligence- the capacity

to learn and to use existing knowledge. In the new millennium, this will no longer be

so. Creativity, the ability to produce new knowledge, will become our most cherished

trait...this growing complexity exists in most aspects of human endeavour. It seems safe

to say that in no other era of human history have we had so great a need for creative

ideas (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 3).

Paradoxically, at the same time when performance and creativity are becoming increasingly

important, they continue to be among the least researched topics in the social sciences.

Moreover, current understanding of the two phenomena is insufficient to guide practical

endeavours, or the further development of empirical or theoretical work. The introduction of

the new systems paradigm (Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Gardner, 1993; Feldman et al., 1994;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) and the use of new methodologies (Magyari-Beck, 1976), may provide

the first steps toward resolving the research needs identified in this chapter. According to

Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a), however, progress is unlikely unless future studies of PCP use



rigorously established definitions, a theoretical framework based upon ‘Material Universals’,

‘Realism’, and ‘Contextualism’ rather than ‘Abstract Universals’, ‘Idealism’, and ‘Mechanicism’.

(see Appendix 10). In Emery’s (1999a) view, this means that the concept of PCP will need to be

defined in functional terms; outlining what it is that PCPers do to effect change in their

contexts. Emery (2000) argues that studies of PCP should conceptualise individuals as open

purposeful systems who are capable of choice, learning and free will. Studies of PCP should

seek to explain the ways in which the person and their environment transact and co-evolve

rather than being focused on the innate traits or abilities of the individual. Moreover, Emery

(2000) highlights the importance of identifying patterns which provide an understanding of how

individuals achieve success given their unique environment and the unique profile of talents,

skills, personality and motivation that they possess. According to Emery (2011), this way of

understanding of PCP stands in stark contrast to research which identifies patterns based on the

frequency and statistical significance of attributes which are shared by PCPers. It also contrasts

with research which identifies higher order patterns of performance and creativity without

specifying the variables which are involved and how they interact.

In summary, it is evident that PCP is a field of research that is under-represented in the social

science literature. During the last one hundred years the research examining performance and

creativity has evolved into a fragmented, compartmentalised, and multi-disciplinary body of

literature which has been largely unsuccessful in providing an explanation for the occurrence of

PCP. Notwithstanding the range of research needs that have been identified, the most

significant and immediate priorities include: (a) clearly defining PCP, (b) organising and

integrating the literature, and (c) broadening the research focus beyond the examination of

isolated psychological variables. Systems approaches which deal with PCP as a ‘distributed’

phenomenon (Glaveanu, 2014), which provide the ability to understand PCP as a ‘bio-psycho-

social’ (Engel, 1977; Dacey & Lennon, 1998) ‘complex’ or ‘syndrome’ (Findlay & Lumsden,

1988; Runco, 2006), and provide the ability to identify pattern(s) of PCP which cut across

disciplinary lines, offer a fruitful future alternative. Further development of systems based PCP

research, however, requires the use of a theoretical framework which: (a) is capable of

organising a large and eclectic body of evidence, (b) contains established variables, and (c) is able

to deal with complex bio-psycho-social phenomena.

1.4 Research aims and research question

This study aims to identify the pattern(s) of biological, psychological, social and contextual

influences which enable ‘Peak Creative Performance’ (PCP) to emerge. Expressed more simply,



it aims to answer the question: What are the pattern(s) which produce PCP? To assist with the

development of answers to this question, the study:

1. Synthesises the existing literature relating to PCP,

2. Extends understanding of the complex of biological, psychological, social and

contextual influences which produce PCP,

3. Introduces a theoretical framework and research methodology capable of supporting

these aims.

The following questions are also explored in order to fulfil the overall aims of the study:

1. How can PCP be defined?

2. What is the relationship between performance and creativity?

3. How does innate ability contribute toward the emergence of PCP?

4. What is the role of learned expertise in the manifestation of PCP?

5. Which aspects of personality most significantly contribute toward the attainment of

PCP?

6. What level and type of motivation is required for PCP to become manifest?

7. Which organisational form is most conducive to the emergence of PCP?

8. How do contextual factors contribute to the development of PCP?

9. How do each of these variables (i.e. innate ability, learned expertise, personality,

motivation, organisational structures and functioning and contextual influences) interact

to produce PCP?

In many ways, the aims of the study is similar to those pursued by Bloom (1985), whose

research explored the lives (i.e. using life history case studies) of one hundred and twenty

talented individuals and sought to identify the patterns which produce talent in different fields

of endeavour.

There are, however, at least three important differences between the aims of the present study

and those which have been pursued by previous studies. As discussed, this study examines PCP

rather than more limited notions such as performance, creativity, talent, expertise, giftedness

and prodigiousness. In addition, the study conceptualises ‘patterns’ of PCP differently. The

definition of ‘pattern’ used in the present study is drawn from the ‘serial-genetic’

conceptualisation of a pattern as being an ‘arithmetic series’ or, ‘mathematical rule’, which

underpins a ‘manifold of observations’ (Cassirer, 1923; Lewin, 1948). Consistent with this

definition, is Bohm’s (1980) conceptualisation of ‘order’ as a ‘series’ of similarities and

differences. Conceptual similarities also exist with the works of Von Ehrenfels (1890), Koffka

(1935), and Kohler (1947), who regard a ‘pattern’ as being an ‘arrangement’, or ‘configuration’ of



characteristics. This is a very different notion to the ‘class-generic’ conceptualisation of patterns

(Emery, 1999a), or the positivist notion of a pattern of ‘factors’ (Cronbach, 1990) that are

frequently used in studies of performance and creativity. Finally, the present study differs from

previous studies because it examines patterns which cut across traditionally separate disciplines.

1.5 Research benefits

As discussed in Section 1.3, the PCP literature is fragmented and compartmentalised. The

influences which have produced this state of affairs include: (a) failure to adequately define PCP

or its subcomponents, (b) failure to establish PCP as an integrated interdisciplinary field of

inquiry, (c) lack of a theoretical framework and relevant methodology capable of dealing with a

complex of biological, psychological, social and contextual variables, (d) failure to develop a

typology of PCP which recognises its various manifestations, and (e) the absence of literature

reviews which recognise and integrate the interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature of the field.

These influences have created barriers to the accessibility of the field, made the accretion of

knowledge difficult, and have slowed efforts to establish an adequate understanding of, and

explanation for, PCP.

Six strategies are used to achieve the aims of this study: (a) the literature is approached as a

single field of inquiry, (b) PCP is empirically defined, (c) an integrated typology of PCP,

spanning multiple domains and multiple types of performance and creativity, is used as a

theoretical sampling framework, (d) Open Systems Theory (OST) is introduced as a framework

capable of dealing with a complex range of variables, (e) an extended literature review is

included as an appendix to organise, integrate and synthesise the existing research, and (f) the

study is designed to identify patterns producing PCP which cut across traditionally separate

disciplines. In addition, this thesis proposes a research agenda which is designed to extend PCP

research beyond the aims identified by the present study. The following seven sections discuss

each of these strategies in more detail.

1.5.1 Single field of inquiry

The PCP literature is multi-disciplinary in nature. Consequently, there are a wide range of

concepts and definitions that are used. Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Feldman et al. (1994),

Runco (2006) and Pershing (2006) have argued, however, that different disciplinary terms for

performance and creativity often deal with similar concepts. Conversely, separate research

disciplines also tend to use similar terms to describe different concepts.



There have been at least three recent developments which are of relevance to this state of

affairs. Firstly, the systems view of performance and creativity (Feldman et al., 1994) has

promoted the use of a more holistic and integrated perspective than that which previously

guided PCP research. Secondly, Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Gardner (1993) and Runco (2006)

argue that various manifestations of PCP may be examined using a single interdisciplinary

typology. Finally, usage of the consensual method (Amabile, 1983; 1996) has enabled historically

divergent concepts (i.e. such as performance and creativity) to be defined using a consistent

methodology.

The present study is one of the first to regard the literature relating to performance and

creativity as a single integrated field of inquiry. It is expected that this approach will produce at

least four benefits. It may enable the knowledge and findings from differing research disciplines

to be contrasted and integrated. For instance, theories pertaining to innate ability may be

integrated with the research examining learned expertise, and this may provide a more robust

understanding of the capabilities underpinning PCP. Similar benefits may also result from the

integration of findings from creativity, expertise, giftedness, motivation, and personality

research. Secondly, research efforts will be able to focus on the type of phenomenon that is of

most practical importance (i.e. the ways in which PCPers change the world). Thirdly, it is

anticipated that the sub-variables which contribute to PCP (such as intelligence, expertise,

personality and motivation) may, for the first time, be placed in context and examined in terms

of their relationship to the broader notion of PCP, rather than being examined in isolation.

Finally, and most importantly, it may become possible to identify patterns which span biological,

psychological, sociological and contextual boundaries (Engel, 1977). It is envisaged that these

four contributions may: (a) help to overcome some of the limitations associated with existing

literature (outlined above), (b) establish the basis on which more robust explanations for PCP

may be developed, and (c) provide research which is of practical use to those who are seeking to

enhance individual and group performance and creativity.

1.5.2 Definition of Peak Creative Performance

Concepts are often poorly defined in the PCP literature. This problem is exacerbated by the

multi-disciplinary nature of the literature. As discussed in Section 1.3, however, such definitional

problems even exist within disciplines such as psychology. For instance, there is much debate

regarding the definition of sub concepts such as ‘intelligence’ (Binet, 1915; Ackoff & Emery,

1972; Cronbach, 1990; Sternberg, 1990; Gardner, 1993a).

Viewing the literature on performance and creativity as a single field of inquiry requires that a

definition of PCP be established which, not only clarifies the scope of the field, but also



prevents the reoccurrence of previous definitional difficulties. Following the recommendations

of Ackoff and Emery (1972), Amabile (1983) and Feldman et al. (1994), the present study aims

to establish a definition of PCP which uses: (a) a consensual approach (i.e. a determination

which is based on the consensus view of experts within a domain), (b) a functionally based

definition (i.e. what the PCPer does in relation to the environment), and (c) a definition which is

based on empirical evidence.

It is envisaged that the definition of PCP which is established by the present study will introduce

at least seven benefits. Firstly, such a definition will reinforce the notion of a single field of

inquiry. Secondly, it will establish a definition under which existing sub-concepts can be

integrated, and the relationships between sub-concepts can be understood. Thirdly, it will enable

knowledge among historically independent research streams to be integrated, and patterns which

span biological, psychological, sociological and contextual factors to be identified. Fourthly, by

defining PCP in functional terms (i.e. in terms of what PCPers do in relation to their

environment), many of the advantages which are associated with the use of ‘serial-genetic’

concepts (discussed in Appendix 10), yet rarely present within the existing PCP literature, may

be realised. Fifthly, the present study will extend the contemporary systems research of Feldman

et al. (1994), by introducing the theoretical and methodological rationale for establishing, and

systematically testing, such a definition of PCP. Sixthly, it is envisaged that such a definition will

address several of the methodological weaknesses identified by Runco (2006) and Dai (2010) in

relation to the existing definitions of performance and creativity (i.e. many studies do not define

the concepts being used, others propose definitions but do not establish the basis upon which

they are derived, and even contemporary studies of creativity citing the dual characteristics of

novelty and appropriateness, rarely establish the empirical basis for this definition). Finally, there

is a general consensus in the literature that the failure to resolve definitional difficulties is a key

factor which has hampered progress in the field (Feldman et al., 1994; Ericsson, 1996; Sawyer,

2006; Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). By using an appropriate theoretical

framework and methodology to develop an empirically based functional definition of PCP, this

study contributes to the establishment of a comprehensive research program which may assist

future researchers interested in PCP.

1.5.3 Theoretical sampling typology

Feldman et al. (1994) have developed methods for identifying and recruiting participants for the

purposes of studying creativity. The aims of this study require, however, the development of a

methodology for identifying an appropriate sample of participants which is, not only

representative of the various types of PCP, but also representative of the domains within which

PCP may arise.



The present study introduces a performance typology which integrates and extends the work of

Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Gardner (1993), Feldman et al. (1994) and Runco (2006). The

performance typology categorises participants using four dimensions: (a) as ‘masters’ or

‘makers’, (b) according to the nature of the creative work (i.e. ‘performance’, ‘product’ or

‘paradigm’), (c) by the domain of achievement (i.e. sport, business, music, politics etcetera), and

(d) as a ‘Performer’ or an ‘Observer’.

Notwithstanding the inability of this typology to cover all possible dimensions of PCP (i.e.

Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) requirement that participants be selected from a diverse range of

cultural backgrounds), three benefits flow from its development. Firstly, when combined with

an empirically based functional definition of PCP, a new theoretical framework (discussed in

Section 1.5.4 below) and a revised methodological approach (discussed in Section 1.5.5 below),

such a typology helps to provide a comprehensive set of tools suited to the study of PCP from

the perspective of it being a single integrated field. Secondly, the proposed performance

typology provides researchers who are seeking to identify general patterns producing PCP, with

a method for identifying an appropriate sample of participants. Finally, the typology provides

the means by which domain specific patterns of PCP can be identified. Moreover, the typology

introduces the means by which domain specific patterns of PCP may be distinguished from

domain general patterns of PCP.

1.5.4 Capable theoretical framework

The fragmented nature of the PCP literature, has meant that few interdisciplinary frameworks

have been used to examine performance and creativity. Research into PCP has primarily been

conducted using psychological theories (Feldman et al., 1994). The theoretical frameworks used

are typically unable to cater for the complex range of influences which are thought to produce

PCP (Runco, 2006), or deal with individuals as open, purposeful systems (i.e. as individuals who

are capable of choice and learning, who live and work in social structures, and who transact with

their environment (Emery, 1999a)). More recently, Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Wallace and

Gruber (1989) and Feldman et al. (1994), have introduced the use of systems frameworks,

Montuori and Purser (1999) have reviewed the use of chaos and complexity theories to examine

creativity, and Glaveanu (2013, 2014) has examined creativity from a ‘distributed’ perspective.

According to Feldman et al. (1994), these more contemporary frameworks and theories

constitute a new, and fruitful paradigm, because they are the first frameworks that seek to

integrate the broad range of variables that contribute to performance and creativity.



Following the concerns raised by Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a, 2011) (outlined in Section

1.3 above), the present study introduces for the first time (with the exception of Emery (1999)),

the use of Open Systems Theory (OST) as the theoretical framework for the study of PCP.

Open Systems Theory was developed in response the need for a theoretical framework capable

of offering an interdisciplinary understanding of organisational functioning. Open Systems

Theory has continued to be developed and refined throughout the last sixty years (Trist &

Bamforth, 1951; Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a, 2011). As its name suggests, and as outlined in

more detail in Appendix 10, OST springs from research utilising a contextual perspective

(Pepper, 1942; Hayes, 1993; Preyer, 2005; DeRose, 2011), field theory (Lewin, 1948), systems

thinking (Emery, 1978; Laszlo, 1996; Checkland, 1999; Luhmans, 2012) and the socio-ecological

perspective (Emery & Trist, 1972; Bookchin, 1994; Light, 1998; McCarthy, 2009; Ostrom,

2009). In contrast to the contemporary systems frameworks used to examine prodigiousness

and creativity, which reflect an eclectic mix of assumptions and concepts, OST has been

carefully developed, and according to Emery (2000), follows a clear research tradition and

represents a coherent theoretical framework.

There are at least six advantages to be gained by using OST as the theoretical framework (rather

than traditional psychological or contemporary systems frameworks) for conducting PCP

research. According to Emery (1999a) and Kuhn (2008), underpinning assumptions have

profound implications for the conduct of social science research. In addition, Marchington and

Wilkinson (2005) and Emery (2011) have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the

assumptions being used in much of the contemporary social science research. Open Systems

Theory is an established theoretical framework underpinned by a long research tradition. The

use of OST for the study of PCP, may not only assist researchers to make conscious and careful

choices regarding the assumptions which underpin their concepts and worldviews, it may also

enable them to critically evaluate and integrate the contributions made by the existing literature.

Moreover, OST may provide a framework upon which future PCP research can systematically

accrue knowledge.

Secondly, according to Ackoff and Emery (1972), Trist, Emery and Murray (1997) and Emery

(1999a), OST incorporates a range of established variables (spanning biological, psychological,

social and environmental influences) and, identifies the theoretical and empirical relationships

between these variables. Such a comprehensive theoretical framework has not previously been

used to study PCP. It is expected that this feature of OST will enhance the ability of PCP

researchers to organise, synthesise and integrate the literature. For the first time, researchers will

be able to develop hypotheses regarding the relationships between the variables and the findings

emerging from traditionally separate research disciplines. In addition, because OST is a systems

theory capable of dealing with a wide range of variables, including variables which appear to be



qualitatively different in nature (Emery, Trist & Murray, 1997), OST enhances the capacity of

researchers to understand PCP as a ‘complex’ or ‘syndrome’ (Findlay and Lumsden, 1988;

Runco, 2006). It is envisaged therefore, that in addition to the benefits of integrating the existing

literature, OST will provide a more powerful basis, than has previously existed, upon which to

conduct future interdisciplinary research examining PCP.

Thirdly, as outlined in Section 1.4, OST introduces a unique conceptualisation of the term

‘pattern’. There is further discussion of this benefit in Section 1.5.6 which deals with the

identification of patterns producing PCP.

Fourthly, OST also offers a set of methodological tools which contribute important advantages

to PCP research. These advantages are discussed in more detail in Section 1.5.6.

Fifthly, Emery (1999a) argues that OST establishes a definable environment and enables the

causal texture and the lawful properties of the PCPer environment to be identified. According

to Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) and Feldman et al. (1994), obtaining a better understanding

of the role of the domain and field (i.e. the environment) is an important PCP research need. It

is anticipated that this feature of OST may better enable future researchers to examine the way

in which individuals and their environments co-evolve to produce PCP.

Finally, OST conceptualises human beings as open, purposeful systems capable of choice,

learning and free will. According to Emery (1999a), this is an important research need because

few existing frameworks approach PCPers in this way.

1.5.5 Extended literature review

Until recently, much of the research examining topics such as intelligence, creativity, giftedness,

genius, talent, innovation, high performance teamwork and expertise, has been conducted by

separate fields of inquiry. Following the introduction of the systems paradigm (Feldman et al.,

1994), several handbooks have emerged which attempt to organise, integrate and synthesise the

diverse, fragmented and compartmentalised performance and creativity literature (Kaufman &

Sternberg, 2010, Pershing, 2006; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006). Such efforts have, however, been

hampered by the absence of an adequate theoretical framework. In many cases studies provide a

brief overview of the different disciplinary perspectives, but fail to provide a comprehensive and

critical examination of the entire body of literature.

In contrast, the present study includes an extended review (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 9)

which is designed to synthesise and integrate the multi-disciplinary literature for the first time. It



is envisaged that at least four benefits will arise from conducting such a review. Firstly, this is

the first research study to conduct a review of the literature which is guided by the concept of

PCP (as opposed to the use of more restricted concepts such as creativity or expertise). It is

anticipated that this broader perspective will benefit researchers by broadening the scope of the

literature which is surveyed. Secondly, by drawing together into one review, the literature which

deals with a broader range of variables (i.e. innate ability, learned expertise, personality,

motivation, goal seeking, organisational structure and contextual influences), it is envisaged that

the literature will be made more accessible and enable it to be presented in a way which is useful

to researchers who are seeking to identify patterns which cross biological, psychological,

sociological and contextual boundaries. Thirdly, the literature review conducted in this study is

guided by a theoretical framework which has an established interdisciplinary application. It is

expected that by using OST to guide the writing and the interpretation of such a review, this will

better enable researchers to identify relationships between variables from traditionally separate

disciplines, as well as enabling them to critically evaluate the merits of various disciplinary

contributions. Finally, this study is the first to conduct a comprehensive literature review of

both ‘key’ variables as well as ‘sub’ variables. For instance, Appendix 9 not only examines the

PCPer personality, but also reviews the role of genetic influences and early childhood trauma in

producing PCP behavioural preferences. It is anticipated that this approach will benefit future

researchers by helping them to establish hypotheses, identify the pattern of causal relationships

between variables, and develop more comprehensive explanations of PCP.

1.5.6 Identify pattern(s) producing Peak Creative Performance

As discussed in Section 1.3, Feldman et al. (1994), Csikszentmihalyi (1997) and Glaveanu (2014)

have identified the need for studies of performance and creativity to move beyond the

examination of isolated variables, and Runco (2006) has discussed the implications of creativity

being viewed as a ‘complex’ or ‘syndrome’. In addition, a general consensus has emerged

(Findlay & Lumsden; 1988; Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Feldman et al., 1994; Dacey & Lennon,

1998), that the systems paradigm provides a fruitful approach for the study of creativity. The

systems perspective implies a holistic view of performance and creativity, the integration of

different disciplines and the examination of patterns which span biological, psychological,

sociological and contextual variables. To date, relatively few systems studies have sought to

identify these types of patterns (i.e. the patterns producing prodigiousness and creativity).

Moreover, there are no studies which have examined the patterns producing PCP. Furthermore,

few studies have utilised an established theoretical framework to organise the literature, or a

framework and methodology which is capable of identifying empirical and theoretical

relationships between the variables from various disciplines. A need exists, therefore, for



research which uses an established systems theory to integrate the literature and introduce a

methodology which is suitable for interdisciplinary pattern identification.

In contrast, the present study addresses these research needs and, in doing so, extends the

contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity in at least three ways. The study

examines the pattern(s) producing PCP using an established theoretical framework. The study

draws together a wide range of traditionally unrelated variables (including innate ability, learned

expertise, personality, motivation, purposeful behaviour, organisational structure and

functioning, perception of the environment and contextual influences), and introduces

methodological tools (which are drawn from previous OST studies but have not been applied to

the study of PCP) which are suitable for the identification of patterns among systems of coupled

variables.

The study examines patterns relating to PCP (i.e. a broader concept than prodigiousness or

creativity), and in doing so takes the first steps toward the establishment of an interdisciplinary

field of research. Not only does this interdisciplinary approach enable the identification of

general patterns which produce PCP, it may also allow researchers to identify more specific

patterns (i.e. domain specific patterns) and understand the relationship between them.

The third way in which the present study extends contemporary systems research is via the use

of a different conceptualisation of the term ‘pattern’. As discussed in Section 1.4, the present

study seeks to identify the particular configuration of biological, psychological, social and

contextual influences which enable an individual to introduce works which are recognised as

fundamentally changing a domain. The study places emphasis on the ways in which each of

these influences interact as a system, and the way in which the individual and environment co-

evolve. This approach is derived from an established research tradition which seeks to identify

‘serial-genetic’ or ‘genotypical’ patterns (Emery, 1999a), uses ‘directive correlation analysis’

(Emery, 1977) (a method which is appropriate for examining the co-evolution of individuals and

their environment), and ‘causal path analysis’ (Emery, 1976) (a method for identifying the

pattern of relationships among a system of coupled variables). This is a very different way of

understanding and identifying patterns to that which is used by existing studies of performance

and creativity. Typically, previous studies have utilised methods such as factor analysis (Galton,

1869; Cronbach, 1990) to identify the individual characteristics which are most common or

significant among a statistically valid sample of creative individuals or expert performers.

According to Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (1999a), this approach is based on a

research tradition which is uses ‘class-generic’ concepts. It is an approach which ignores the role

of the environment, the configuration of variables, and the ways in which the various influences



work together to produce performance and creativity. Moreover, according to Emery (1999a),

such an approach results in the identification of ‘phenotypical’ or ‘superficial’ patterns.

The present study may offer, therefore, a fruitful alternative method for organising the literature,

conducting pattern analysis and extending the existing performance and creativity literature.

1.5.7 Future research agenda

In addition to the strategies described above, the present study foreshadows the introduction of

a research program which is greater in scope than can be achieved within a PhD thesis. The

proposed research program is envisaged to include the use of multiple life case history

interviews, control groups and the full usage of ‘directive correlation analysis’ and ‘causal path

analysis’ to examine PCPer and control group data. Such a study may achieve the standard of

excellence envisaged by Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948), Feldman et al. (1994) and Emery (1999a),

and take the study of PCP, from being one which is poorly understood and under-represented

in the social sciences (Feldman et al., 1994), to being one which contributes proactively,

practically and positively to enhancing outcomes for individuals, groups and organisations.

1.6 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is comprised of six chapters. Following the introductory sections, Chapter 2 provides

a review of the performance and creativity literature. This section of the literature review

chronologically traces the development of performance and creativity research. The evolution of

this literature is divided into three research paradigms (‘traditional’, ‘current’, and ‘future’) to

elucidate the three fundamental differences which have been taken in relation to philosophical,

theoretical and methodological foci. Chapter 2 is supplemented with an extended literature

review which is contained within Appendix 9. Splitting the literature review in this way, not only

provided the means to make the thesis more accessible, it also enabled a delineation to be made

between the atypical performance and creativity research, and the large multi-disciplinary body

of literature which is relevant to the study of PCP yet rarely synthesised to provide an

understanding of the key biological, psychological, sociological, and contextual influences which

contribute to the emergence of PCP. Chapter 3 describes and justifies the research methodology

used by the study and discusses the alignment between the research question and the proposed

theoretical framework and methodology. The proposed methodology is primarily qualitative;

however, quantitative analysis is used in a supporting role. Chapter 4 presents the results of the

case study analyses (i.e. interviews with six ‘Performers’ and twenty four ‘Observers’). Chapter 4

contains three distinct sections: (a) examination of the definition of PCP, (b) the patterns



producing PCP, and (c) corroboration of the ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ analyses. Chapter 5

discusses the findings of the present study, contrasts these findings with the literature and

examines the implications of, and the contributions that are made by, the study. Chapter 6

synthesises the findings of the study, reaches conclusions, and provides recommendations for

further research.

1.7 Summary

This chapter has provided the rationale for conducting a study which examines the patterns

producing PCP. Notwithstanding its relatively marginal status as a research topic within the

social sciences, PCP research is needed which addresses the fragmented and compartmentalised

nature of the literature, uses an established theoretical framework and methodological approach

to extend contemporary systems studies of performance and creativity, and establishes the

theoretical and methodological basis upon which a systematic future research program may be

based. The chapter also included an overview of the structure and format of the thesis.

The following chapter provides an extended review of the literature relating to PCP.

Chapter 2: Literature Review


Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction

Traditionally the purposes of a literature review are to: (a) contextualise the research, (b)

demonstrate understanding of the topic, (c) provide a critical assessment of the substantive

findings, theoretical and methodological contributions made by other scholars in the field; (d)

locate the study within a research tradition, and (e) justify the theoretical framework and

methodology to be used.

In addition to these purposes, the literature review contained within this thesis pursues the

additional objective of organising and integrating the large, fragmented, compartmentalised and

multi-disciplinary body of research which has been described in Sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5

above. The pursuit of such an objective would, however, necessitate the inclusion of a literature

review which is larger than usual. In order to simultaneously achieve these objectives, and

maintain the appropriate focus and flow throughout the thesis, the literature review contained

within this chapter is confined to an examination of the evolution of performance and creativity

research across three paradigms; the ‘traditional’ paradigm, the ‘current’ paradigm and a ‘future’

paradigm. Appendix 9 provides an extended review and synthesis of the remaining performance

and creativity literature, and Appendix 10 provides an overview of the ‘Open Systems Theory’

(OST) literature.

The first section of the chapter reviews the ‘traditional’ paradigm of performance and creativity.

This section contextualises the research by providing an historical overview of the study of

performance and creativity. This overview traces the study of performance and creativity from

its early religious conceptualisations, through the Renaissance period, to the scientific studies of

genius and eminence which emerged during the nineteenth century, and then to the

performance and creativity research which has been conducted between World War II and the

1980’s. This is followed by an examination of the way in which performance and creativity is

conceptualised under the ‘traditional paradigm’. An illustrative case study is used to provide a

greater elucidation of the quintessential view of performance and creativity offered by this

paradigm. The section concludes with a review of the limitations of the ‘traditional’ paradigm of

performance and creativity research.

The second section of the chapter provides a review of the ‘current’ paradigm of performance

and creativity research. This section follows the same structure as the previous section. The

review of ‘current’ paradigm, however, traces the development of performance and creativity



research from the late 1980’s up to the present day. In addition, this second section describes

the transition which has been made from the ‘traditional’ paradigm (which emphasised the role

of endogenous factors) to the ‘current’ paradigm (which seeks to gain a more holistic and

systemic understanding of performance and creativity; particularly regarding the role of

contextual factors).

The literature review concludes with a discussion which examines the emergence of a ‘future’

paradigm of ‘Peak Creative Performance’ (PCP) research. This concluding section outlines the

way in which the limitations of the current paradigm may be overcome by the use of ‘Open

Systems Theory’ (OST). It is suggested that the use of OST would represent such a significant

extension of the ‘current’ paradigm, that it would constitute an entirely new ‘future’ paradigm of

research. Moreover, it is argued that such an approach would not only, relocate PCP research

with regard to the philosophical stream of research from which it derives, but that it would also

provide the means by which the extended literature review (contained within Appendix 9) may

be incorporated into the study of performance and creativity. Furthermore, it is suggested that

such a ‘future’ paradigm, would provide the means to identify the pattern (incorporating the

multitude of biological, psychological, sociological, technological and contextual influences)

which produces PCP. The identification of such a pattern would provide the foundation upon

which a definable interdisciplinary field of research, capable of systematically accruing

knowledge in relation to PCP, may be developed.

2.3 Traditional Paradigm

2.3.1 Overview

Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that; “the highest levels of performance and achievement in sports,

games, arts and the sciences have always been an object of fascination” (Ericsson et al., 2006,

p.vii). Prior to the nineteenth century, very little was written about the topics of creativity or

performance. The first notions of creativity were influenced by the religious concept of the

bicameral mind (Dacey & Lennon, 1998), and commentators during the Renaissance viewed

creativity in romantic terms (Runco, 2006). The former suggested that one chamber of the mind

was influenced by the ‘gods’ through the mediation of a muse. The latter, is a perspective which

emerged out of one of the great ages in social freedom and human cultural development.

Consequently, romantic notions of performance and creativity attributed creative work to

mysterious psychopathological processes, the preference for a bohemian lifestyle, and the use of

psychoactive drugs.



Scientific notions of PCP first appeared during the ‘age of enlightenment’ at the beginning of

the eighteenth century (Dacey & Lennon, 1998). For creativity to be explained scientifically, it

could not be regarded as a product of divinity. The ‘age of enlightenment’ provided the

necessary break from previously religious conceptions of creativity. The concept of the

bicameral mind gave way to the notion of self-awareness, a faith in humanism and the ability of

human beings to solve problems through their own mental efforts, and a solidified belief in the

scientific process. The first major inquiry into genius and creativity (Duff, 1767) argued that

genius was distinct from talent. According to Duff (1767), talent produced productive thought

and action which did not break new ground, whereas genius was associated with creativity.

During this ‘age of enlightenment’, it was believed that works of creative genius were produced

by ‘great men’ (Dacey & Lennon, 1998). Duff (1767), however, was one of the few scholars of

the time to argue that both phenomena were the product of a complex of bio-psycho-social and

contextual influences (a topic which is discussed in more detail in Section 2.5).

The development of evolutionary theory during the nineteenth century, however, focused the

debate upon the relative influence of ‘nature and nurture’, and reinforced the notion that

creative genius was hereditary. If evolutionary principles applied to human beings, then

individuals must vary in the degree to which they are adapted to the environment. The study of

individual differences in ‘natural ability’ (using anthropometric instruments) and their variation,

selection and retention, was a logical outgrowth for Galton (1869). Substantial methodological

contributions, such as the use of biographical questionnaires and the development of correlation

and regression analyses, were also made, and applied, to the study of genius during this time

(Darwin, 1859; Galton, 1869). As outlined in greater detail in Appendix 9, this research

suggested that performance and creativity emerged from certain families, and that these families

produced ‘great men’ with minds of intensely fine acuity. Geniuses were individuals whose

‘natural ability’ placed them on the extreme far right of the normal distribution. Geniuses

possessed abilities which were so well adapted to the environment that they would necessarily

achieve eminence. In parallel with these studies, early biological and neurological research was

being conducted. This research sought to identify the degree to which creativity could be related

to specific regions in the brain. Early findings suggested that the left hemisphere had

disproportionate influence on creativity, however, this was soon discredited as evidence

emerged to show that creativity is associated with a complex pattern of brain activity. Some

exploration of the conscious and unconscious aspects of creative thought was also undertaken

during this period.

Following the turn of the century, creativity research became a relatively neglected field (owing

to the dominance of behaviourism (Watson, 1930) and psychoanalysis (Freud, 1933) within the

emerging field of psychology). The advent of clinical psychology, did however, investigate the



relationship between ‘madness’ and creativity (i.e. the mad-genius hypothesis) and the biological

and psychological bases of both phenomena (including the role of unconscious motives,

defence mechanisms, and primary and secondary thought processes).

In 1950, J.P. Guilford (president of the American Psychological Association) raised the profile

of performance and creativity research. Guilford (1967), not only by nominated creativity as a

key topic of interest for the psychological profession (to assist America prepare for the emerging

‘knowledge economy’), he also dedicated resources and attention toward creativity research for

several decades. Guilford (1967) foreshadowed the emergence of a second industrial revolution,

which would establish an economy reliant upon intellectual and creative work as the primary

means of economic value. Consequently, he envisioned the establishment of a branch of

psychology which was dedicated to the identification and development of ‘talent’. During this

period, however, the study of performance and creativity was dominated by research examining

‘general intelligence’ (i.e. the newly developed psychometric tests measuring the ‘intelligence

quotient’ (Binet, 1915), and the preliminary results of longitudinal studies which suggested that

eminent and creative individuals scored highly on such tests (Terman & Oden, 1959)). As a

result, creativity research subsequently became inextricably intertwined with the concept

intelligence. The formal definition of the concept of genius (i.e. an individual with an

exceptionally high intelligence quotient; greater than 140), is illustrative of this point.

Following WWII, and the development of psychometric techniques designed to identify the

psychological profile of effective soldiers and CIA operatives (MacKinnon, 1978), efforts were

made to determine the personality traits of creative individuals. Subsequently, the scientific

understanding of performance and creativity became an amalgam of intelligence and personality

research (incorporating both psychoanalytic, and humanistic conceptions of creativity). In

addition, advancements regarding the use of statistical techniques, resulted in the use of

methods such as ‘factor analysis’ (Guilford, 1967; Cronbach, 1990) and ‘historiometrics’

(Simonton, 1999) as the primary means by which performance and creativity research was

conducted.

During the 1960’s, evidence emerged which indicated that intelligence and creativity were

different traits (other than beyond threshold levels of intelligence). Following a broader shift

away from personality psychology toward cognitive psychology during the 1970’s (Sawyer,

2006), performance and creativity research efforts were redirected to focus upon the cognitive

processes associated with intelligence (i.e. convergent thinking) and creativity (i.e. divergent

thinking and remote association). During this period, the debate focused upon the concept of

‘creative insight’, and the competing paradigms of ‘associationism’ (Watson, 1930; Skinner,

1953) and ‘holism’ (Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947) (both having their antecedents prior to the war)



which sought to explain the ‘insight’ phenomenon. Efforts were also made to better understand

the stages of creative thought (Wallas, 1926), however, the concept of ‘divergent thinking’ was

subsequently found to be only one of the components of creative potential, and the tests that

had been designed to assess divergent thinking capacity were found to be weakly related to real

world creative accomplishment (Feldman et al., 1994).

Each of the developments in performance and creativity research outlined above were

influenced by the social, political and contextual influences occurring during each historical

period (see Appendix 9 which provides a more detailed account of the ‘traditional’ paradigm).

According to Sawyer (2006), however, by the mid 1980’s, psychologists had all but given up

trying to understanding creativity using intelligence, personality or creative thinking tests.

2.3.2 Traditional conceptualisation

The primary focus of performance and creativity research upon intelligence, personality and

cognitive processes is reflective of a broader research paradigm which regards the highest levels

of achievement as being the result of endogenous factors. Notwithstanding the suggestion that

the literature examining intelligence, personality, and creative processes represent three separate

fields of research (Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006), it is argued that each of

these literatures are underpinned by the philosophical stream of thought called ‘Idealism’ (see

Appendix 10 for a more detailed review of ‘Idealism’).

The primary focus of this paradigm of performance and creativity research (referred to as the

‘traditional’ paradigm) is to understand the essence of a thing or object. This is achieved by the

analysis of constituent parts (i.e. the characteristics which are ‘inside’ the eminent individual).

The endogenous view asks ‘what is creativity?’ Glaveanu (2014) refers to this as the ‘He-

paradigm’ of creativity, and Pepper (1942) uses the term ‘Mechanicism’ to describe the

worldview which is adopted by the ‘traditional’ paradigm. As outlined in more detail in

Appendix 9, the intelligence literature describes a view performance and creativity which is

predicated on the assumption that there are a few ‘great men’, who differ qualitatively from

other individuals by virtue of their heredity and innate ability (i.e. through natural selection and

assortative mating, such individuals have inherited a brain which is more effectively connected

than the brains’ of other individuals). Similarly, the personality literature reviewed in Appendix

9, explains performance and creativity in terms of the independent and subjectivising traits of

the eminently creative individual. Moreover, this literature regards such personality traits as

having a strong biological basis (particularly in regard to the construct of psychoticism and role

of the DRD2 allele). In addition, the cognitive psychology literature examining creative

processes (such as divergent and convergent thinking), is described in Appendix 9 as being



underpinned by ‘associationism’; a stream of thought which seeks to understand the way in

which neurons ‘fire and wire’ together, the ways in which different ideas ‘inside the head’ of the

creator become associated with one another, and the ways in which differing ideas are combined

and then recombined to generate creative insights. According to Emery (1999a, 2000),

‘associationsim’ is, not only, a subset of the broader stream of thought of ‘Idealism’, it also

offers an ‘autocentric’ understanding of creative processes (i.e. reflective of the ‘traditional’

paradigm).

Notwithstanding the research examining the relative contribution made by nature and nurture

(and the interplay between them) in eminent achievement, the extended review outlined in

Appendix 9 confirms that the endogenous view of performance and creativity dominates the

existing literature. Conceptually, this view suggests that performance and creativity is achievable

by relatively few individuals; that the influences underpinning performance and creativity are

largely innate and immalleable, and that external influences are largely irrelevant in our

understanding of performance and creativity. Methodologically, as Emery (2000) argues in

Appendix 10, such studies proceed by examining the statistical frequency with which

endogenous characteristics are present in a large sample of performers or creators. Confirming

this preference, Appendix 9 describes the pervasiveness of performance and creativity studies

which are psychological, reductionist and quantitative in nature. Of particular importance to this

methodological approach, are the use of analytical techniques (such as ‘factor analysis’) which

are designed to isolate intellectual, creative and personality clusters (and demonstrate the

distinction between intelligent and creative thought), and then associate them with various

measures of performance and creativity.

2.3.3 Illustration

The endogenous view of performance and creativity (i.e. the ‘traditional’ paradigm) is embodied

by four case studies; Mozart, Picasso, Freud and Delbruck. The cases of Mozart, Picasso and

Freud need little introduction. Each case offers a depiction of the ways in which studies of

performance and creativity are guided by the philosophy and focus of the ‘traditional’ paradigm;

particularly with regard to the role of innate ability, personality traits and creative thought

processes.

According to Gardner (1997), Mozart is, by any definition, a genius; a prodigy; a ‘wunderkind’.

Mozart was the son of a highly skilled musician; he was also a child who possessed high levels of

ability in several spheres (numerically, linguistically and interpersonally). Mozart’s musical

abilities, however, were prodigious. According to Gardner (1997), Mozart’s musical aptitude

“eclipsed those of any other human being in the realm of the arts” (Gardner, 1997, p. 5). Mozart



began playing piano at the age of three, by four years of age he was learning musical pieces

readily and was able to teach himself the violin. By the age of five, he had learnt to compose

music, and by the age of seven, he began to tour Europe and was able to transcribe complex

musical pieces after a single listening. By the age of ten, he arranged concerti, composed an

oratorio, and was already regarded as “an accomplished master of contemporary…composition

equal to any living composer of his time” (Gardner, 1997, p. 56). By the age of twelve, Mozart

wrote an opera and a series of substantial orchestral serenades. By the age fifteen, Mozart’s

pieces had earned him a place in the permanent repertory. Attesting to his musical abilities, the

composer Franz Joseph Haydn stated in a letter to Mozart’s father that, “your son is the greatest

composer known to me…he has taste…and the most profound knowledge of composition”

(Gardner, 1997, p. 52). Even among other musical masters, Mozart stands out; his quality of

work surpassed others, he was able to conceive works immediately which required virtually no

revision; “Mozart is the standard against which other prodigies are judged, and this metric

extends to other domains” (Gardner, 1997, p. 67).

The role of innate ability is also epitomized by case studies which examine the life and works of

Picasso. According to Gardner (1993), “one has to go back…to the case of…Mozart, to

encounter an individual so prodigious…and so masterful in his maturity, as Pablo Picasso”

(Gardner, 1993, p. 138). Picasso was born to a father who was a practicing artist and art teacher.

According to Gardner (1993), Picasso not only began to draw at the same time that he began to

speak, he also drew incessantly, with increasing skill during his infancy. By the age of nine, he

had a mastery of line and composition. By the age of ten, Picasso was able to start work from an

arbitrary point (often works involving the human form), and produce a coherent work. He had

also surpassed the proficiency of his father and local artistic masters by the time of his

adolescence. Like Mozart, Picasso had the capacity to “remember virtually every live and painted

scene that he had ever witnessed…Picasso’s precocity was most striking in the visual-spatial,

bodily-kinaesthetic and interpersonal arenas” (Gardner, 1993, p. 141). He was able to “draw

most any object in his surroundings with skill, wit, and originality” (Gardner, 1993, p.142).

Moreover, Picasso demonstrated virtuosity in his ability to capture the mood and personality of

a scene. According to Gardner (1993), he was able to make a penetrating impact on observers

with but a few brush strokes. Importantly, as was the case with Mozart, Gardner (1993) argues

that Picasso’s prodigiousness was due to his giftedness across a range of skills (however, Picasso

did have difficulty with scholastic skills, abstract thinking and academia in general).

Notwithstanding these shortcomings, “Picasso…was a painting prodigy who effortlessly

surpassed all the other artists in his milieu” (Gardner, 1993, p. 145). Following his first exhibit at

the age of twenty, Picasso was celebrated for his virtuosity, versatility, his purity of painting, the

use of colour and subjects, and the enormous range of influences he had managed to absorb.

According to Gardner (1993), Picasso’s prodigiousness was such that, “he was able to do



whatever he wanted…his virtuosity was never seriously challenged…he seldom met his

equal…in any sphere that he valued” (Gardner, 1993, p. 184).

Case studies of Freud also emphasise the prominent role that innate ability plays in eminent

achievement. According to Gardner (1997), Freud was a scholastic prodigy. Freud excelled in

literacy, language, human relations and puzzle solving (however, he did not possess strengths in

mathematics or spatial reasoning). Freud was aware that he was unusually gifted, and it is

generally acknowledged that he could have excelled in several disciplines including science, law,

medicine and the military. Moreover, according to Gardner (1997):

his early letters and journals suggest that the question at hand was not was not whether

he would achieve significantly but rather in which professional or scholarly domain he

would make his mark (Gardner, 1997, p. 71).

The degree to which Freud’s talents were recognised and supported by his family are reported to

include: efforts to organise the daily routines of the family around him, providing him with his

own room and his own bookcase, and furnishing him with his own eating chamber.

Freud began a research career in neurology and his intellectual talents led him to the brink of at

least three medical breakthroughs. Testifying to Freud’s intellectual capacities, one of his close

collaborators (himself being one of the brightest intellectuals in psychology and medicine)

argued that Freud’s intellect was highly superior, and that he himself was unable to accompany

Freud on his imaginative flights (Gardner, 1997, p. 73). Freud later turned his energies toward

areas where he had a clear competitive advantage over others. He read widely and voraciously,

he mastered English and French, and also taught himself Spanish so that he could read certain

articles in the original. Moreover, Freud’s talents provided him with the capacity to work

tirelessly; seeing patients throughout a long working day, constructing an entirely new body of

work, publishing a burgeoning literature, and leading the field of psychoanalysis which he had

created. According to Gardner (1997), “the challenge to the prodigy-turned-expert is to

transcend the achievement of fellow experts and acquire a distinctive form of mastery”

(Gardner, 1997, p. 78). Freud rose to this challenge. The publication of his magnum opus ‘The

Interpretation of Dreams’, is a testament to this; it is a work which showcases Freud’s ability to

leverage his innate strengths whilst avoiding his weaknesses.

Mozart, Picasso and Freud are regarded as possessing distinctive personality traits. Gardner

(1997) regards Mozart as a ‘master’, and the latter two as ‘maker’s’. Mozart’s contribution is,

therefore, less idiosyncratic, yet no less significant or creative. Notwithstanding Mozart’s fathers’

efforts to encourage him to compose and perform highly prized mainstream pieces of music, by



the age of fifteen, Mozart recognised that “such attainments could be reached only at a high

price…(and) he was faced with a stark choice: either continue, expert-style, to repeat himself, or

(to) venture in new, relatively unexplored directions” (Gardner, 1997, pp. 57-58). According to

Gardner (1997), this required Mozart to make a sharp, and difficult break with his father, his

teachers, and his role models. Mozart, therefore, confronted the challenge faced by every

prodigy; to break away from precisely what he or she has been celebrated and rewarded for; to

change from being one who follows, to one who stands alone. In Gardner’s (1997) view, “this

pattern…reflects personality, for the motivations that spur prodigies differ from those that drive

creators” (Gardner, 1997, p. 59). During his early teenage years, it was evident that Mozart

would make the break necessary to become a creative master. He held all of his contemporaries

in contempt, he did not wish to emulate them, and he was creating increasingly iconoclastic

works yet deliberately restraining himself in order to satisfy the conventional tastes of the time.

Picasso provides a starker example of the distinctive personality of the creator. From an early

age, Picasso was fragmenting and distorting aspects of form and scale and “fiddling with

unfamiliar arrangements and guiding... (his) domain in new directions” (Gardner, 1993, p. 143).

Like Mozart, Picasso’s father strongly encouraged adherence to the traditional canons of artistry.

According to Gardner (1993), however, Picasso’s irreverent independence and “willingness to

experiment is more of an endogenous factor: one that arises from a temperament that seeks

arousal” (Gardner, 1993, p. 143). Picasso suffered a series of trauma’s during his upbringing (the

trauma of an earthquake during childhood, the death of his younger sister and several close

acquaintances, and a rift with his father). Like Mozart, Picasso shunned formal education, held

mediocre teachers in contempt, and reverted to self-education. Picasso’s first defining work ‘La

vie’ was so unique that it could not be judged by any other comparable works. According to

Gardner (1993):

still in his early twenties, Picasso is already in the class of the greatest painters of the

previous generation…soon he would proceed even further in his own development,

toward a form of painting that would establish new standards for a new century

(Gardner, 1993, p. 154).

Moreover, Picasso’s style has been described as being intensely personal. Like Mozart, Picasso

resisted the temptation to ‘ride the wheels of success’. According to Gardner (1993):

there was something in Picasso- perhaps the same impulse that led him to disassemble

forms in the notebooks of his youth- that prevented him from resting on his laurels;



instead, he felt compelled perpetually to face new challenges and scale new heights- as

well as risk unprecedented depths (Gardner, 1993, p. 154).

Picasso epitomises a creator who metamorphosizes from prodigy to creator. In Picasso’s own

view, if he could draw as well as Raphael, he had the right to choose his own way (Cubism)

(Gardner, 1993, p. 155). Picasso inevitably encountered the social resistance that greets one

whom is determined to pursue their own path. His work ‘Les demoiselles’ has been described

as:

a shock…one of the most critical turning points in the history of any art form…it

looked forward to a whole new style of painting, in which the forms assumed by the

subject matter would carry the aesthetic weight…the landmark work that inspired

Cubism…reactions ranged from confusion or mystification…to downright rage

(Gardner, 1993, pp. 155-159).

According to Picasso, however:

if you jump, you might fall on the wrong side of the rope. But if you are not willing to

take the risk of breaking your neck, what good is it? You don’t jump at all. You have to

wake people up. To revolutionise their way of identifying things. You’ve got to create

images they won’t accept (Gardner, 1993, p. 159).

Importantly, in Picasso’s case, he continued to pursue an independent path right to the end of

his career. His most famous work ‘Guernica’ embodies his “most engrained personality trait…to

paint in opposition. A violent and destructive streak…motivated much of his work” (Gardner,

1993, p. 172). Notwithstanding their difficulty in gaining acceptance and popularity, the

decadent works of Picasso’s last years never ceased to be daring including depictions of

grotesque sexuality. This, highly independent orientation, is also reflected in Picasso’s personal

life; whereby he would do all, and sacrifice all, in service of his talent.

In the case of Sigmund Freud, it was clear from a young age that he sought fame and

recognition for making a unique contribution to the world. After testing out several

occupations, and as described above, nearly achieving creative breakthroughs in medicine and

neurology (i.e. the use of cocaine, staining nervous tissue with gold chloride, discovery of the

neuron), Freud decided to establish his own domain of work; psychoanalysis. At the time the

disciplines of medicine and psychology were publicly delineated; there was no established



procedure or institution for the examination of unconscious processes, and according to

Gardner (1997), “when Freud declared an interest in these elusive phenomena, he was laying

claim to territory whose existence his colleagues did not acknowledge” (Gardner, 1993, p. 64).

Moreover, illustrating his independent orientation, Gardner (1997) argues that:

by the time Freud had put forth his most original ideas…(he) had already been

completely marginalised in the domains that he had originally inhabited…it became

clear to Freud that he would have to create his own domains and his own fields

(Gardner, 1997, p. 81).

To achieve this, Freud recruited influential individuals who were pioneers, he promoted them,

demanded their loyalty, devised his own concepts and language (which separated psychoanalysis

from medicine and psychology), provided clinical methods, enabled them to establish clinical

practices, denounced contrary views, and developed publications to support the practice of

psychoanalysis and confer legitimacy upon it. Freud was so determined to pursue an

independent path, that he was willing to do so at the expense of many broken relationships.

According to Gardner (1993), “he represents an extreme of explicit ambition and self-

confidence…this ‘achieving’ leitmotif is saved from obsession or megalomania by a pervading

humour and sense of fatalism” (Gardner, 1993, pp.53-54). Moreover, Freud was willing to

endure the rejection of his ideas by the Vienna Society of Psychiatry and Neurology and the

need to pursue his work in virtual isolation (other than from a small number of close

confidants) Gardner (1993, p. 61). According to Freud:

one finds scientific support nowhere; rather there is an effort not to give you a chance

which you feel is very disagreeable…I am pretty much here alone in the elucidation of

the neuroses. They look upon me as…a monomaniac, while I have the distinct feeling

that I have touched upon one of the great secrets of nature (Gardner, 1993, p. 62).

Among the most controversial aspects of his work, were his views on infantile sexuality.

According to Gardner (1993), “this belief…caused Freud to be ostracized. How could innocent

children, living in the prim-and-proper Victorian-Hapsburg era, possibly harbour strong sexual

feelings” (Gardner, 1993, p. 72).

Whilst the creative thought processes utilised by Mozart are not well documented, those of

Picasso and Freud are recorded in sketches, notebooks and working papers. A particularly clear

illustration of the ‘traditional’ account of the creative process employed by eminent individuals,

however, is reported in the case study of Max Delbruck (see Appendix 9).



Picasso kept notebooks which contained hundreds of sketches of the various aesthetic models

he encountered, and the experiences which each period of his life had brought. These sketches

were often reiterated and recombined many times. Intermittently, Picasso would proceed to

work on a canvas which represented a summation and integration of the sketches from the

preceding period in his life. Picasso saw this as an ongoing developmental process; stating that

his “work is like a diary…I am a notebook” (Gardner, 1993, p. 157).

Similarly, Gardner (1993) argues that Freud progressively drew together lessons that he learned

from his own life, his experiences in different disciplines (i.e. medicine, neurology, the military,

and psychology), and in his attempts to solve the problems that he encountered which could not

be adequately overcome by the methods of these independent disciplines (i.e. such as hysteria).

According to Gardner (1993), Freud developed his theory of psychoanalysis by drawing these

experiences together, much in the same way that a puzzle is solved (however, he provided little

scientific evidence to support his theories). Appendix 9, discusses the case of scientist Max

Delbruck (a geneticist examining molecular biology and the effects of radiation dosage on cell

mutation). Emery (1999) characterises Delbruck’s approach to creative thought in much the

same manner as Gardner (1993, 1997) has described the approach taken by Picasso and Freud.

According to Emery (1999), Delbruck sought to identify similarities between experiments and

then intellectually combine and recombine concepts to arrive at the point of creative insight.

Importantly, Emery (1999) argues that Delbruck did not ponder on each observation to

understand how the phenomena he was examining behaved in relation to its context, nor did he

seek to explain anomalous findings between experiments. Moreover, in Appendix 9, Emery

(1999) describes the creative method which was adopted by Delbruck as being an ‘autocentric’

approach to perception, and regards this process as being characteristic of the ‘traditional’ view

of creative thought (i.e. one which is underpinned by the intellectual incubation of ideas).

Whilst the case studies above are not directly drawn from ‘traditional’ studies of performance

and creativity (i.e. such as the studies of Galton (1869), Cox (1926), Wallas (1926), Terman and

Oden (1959), Guilford (1967), and McKinnon (1975), which are primarily quantitative studies of

psychological factors), they do provide a useful illustration of the ‘traditional’ endogenous

account of performance and creativity.

2.3.4 Limitations

There are several limitations associated with the ‘traditional’ endogenous paradigm of

performance and creativity research. The primary difficulty, is its failure to offer an adequate

explanation for the phenomena of performance and creativity. Echoing this point Feldman et al.

(1994) have noted that Guilford, “as a member of the team of psychometricians responsible for



ability testing during World War II,…learned that IQ measures were unsuccessful in predicting

leadership, innovation, or technological inventiveness” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 5). Similarly,

Sawyer (2006) has argued that “the early hopes placed on the first-wave of creativity

research…failed to achieve its goals” (Sawyer, 2006, pp. 54-57). Moreover, Feldman et al. (1994,

p. xiii) argue that this ‘traditional’ view of creativity is deeply flawed and seriously wanting. This

failure is largely associated with the inability of the ‘traditional’ paradigm of performance and

creativity research to incorporate a broader range of influences (see Appendix 9 for a review of

these influences) beyond endogenous factors.

Of most significance is the exclusion of the role of context and environment. For instance,

according to Glaveanu (2013):

The focus of the psychology of creativity has always been on the individual…inside the

individual, on cognitive mechanisms…this is how creativity became closely associated

with problem solving, divergent thinking and insight…and contributes to what can be

called an ideology of creation in psychology and beyond (Glaveanu, 2013, p. 2).

In addition, the traditional paradigm excludes the role of social organisation. As outlined in

Appendix 9, differing forms of social organisation play a key role in family life, early upbringing,

in education, and in the institutions that performers and creators live and work within.

There are a range of specific limitations (outlined in more detail in Appendix 9) which are also

associated with the ‘traditional’ endogenous view of performance and creativity. The types of

issues which are specifically related to the intelligence literature (i.e. one aspect of the

‘traditional’ paradigm) include: (a) failure to demonstrate that intelligence is always associated

with creativity, (b) evidence which challenges the notion that intelligence is a global concept

(particularly studies examining brain modularity, savantism and expertise), and (c) the difficulty

of adequately defining intelligence. In addition, the literature examining the creative personality

suffers from difficulties which are associated with: (a) the sheer range of traits reportedly

correlated with creativity, and (b) the paradoxical nature of many of the personality traits which

have been identified. Furthermore, the limitations which are associated with the ‘traditional’

view of the creative process include: (a) evidence which challenges the degree to which

divergent thinking is associated with creative works, (b) mixed evidence regarding the degree to

which creative cognitive processes may be reliant upon other, potentially more significant

factors (i.e. such as expertise), and (c) conflicting evidence regarding the degree to which

creative processes involve remote association and the recombination of ideas rather than

processes such as pattern identification.



Ultimately, Piirto (1998) regards the endogenous paradigm of performance and creativity

research as being elitist, test driven, school-oriented, and ethnocentric.

Moreover, Appendix 9 shows that, from a methodological standpoint, the ‘traditional’ paradigm

has had the effect of restricting performance and creativity research to a small range of the

research possibilities (Magyari-Beck, 1976; Feldman et al., 1994).

2.4 Current Paradigm

2.4.1 Overview

The limitations of the ‘traditional’ paradigm led a new generation of researchers to search for a

better understanding of the broad range of factors which influence the development of

performers and creators (see Appendix 9); particularly in regard to the role of contextual

influences. The first shift away from the ‘traditional’ psychometric identification of endogenous

factors (i.e. of intelligence, personality, and divergent thinking) emerged from the work of

Wallach (1971), who argued that a better understanding of creativity could be obtained by

conducting detailed studies of creators in specific fields. This type of research was subsequently

pursued by several groups (Barron, 1972; Gruber, 1981; Wallace & Gruber, 1989). The second

fundamental shift away from the ‘traditional’ paradigm, was associated with the work of

Amabile (1983). Notwithstanding Amabile’s (1983) focus on the notion of intrinsic motivation,

her work swung the pendulum of performance and creativity research completely away from

‘endogenous’ factors toward ‘exogenous’ (i.e. contextual) factors. Other researchers who

contributed to this shift in focus include Csikszentmihalyi (1988), Feldman and Goldsmith

(1991), and Gardner (1993). In order for it to offer a useful alternative paradigm for

performance and creativity research, however, this revitalised ‘domain specific’ approach

required a more structured and coherent framework. To achieve this, Feldman et al. (1994)

published the Domain-Individual-Field-Interaction (DIFI) framework. The DIFI framework

provides the foundation for the ‘current’ paradigm of performance and creativity research.

Within the DIFI framework, ‘domain’ refers to the body of knowledge that must be learned (i.e.

mathematics, sport or music), ‘field’ includes the network of social actors who are deemed to be

experts in the domain, and who are charged with vetting the entry of others into the domain,

and ‘individual’ refers to the creator or expert performer. Feldman et al. (1994) argue that the

reciprocal interaction between these three elements represents the minimum set of relationships

necessary for adequate explanation of creativity. According to Sawyer (2006):



The person is the source of innovation; a person begins the process by developing a

created product...the field determined whether a product is novel or appropriate…the

product enters the domain where it is preserved and disseminated to other members of

the field. Works that are rejected by the field do not enter the domain and are often

forgotten and destroyed...the field determines which creative events history will later

judge to be significant discoveries, is a complex social and historical process of

retrospective attribution (Sawyer, 2006, p. 124).

The introduction of the DIFI framework represented a culmination which marked a shift away

from the ‘traditional’ paradigm of performance and creativity research toward the introduction

of the ‘current’ paradigm. Table 1 contrasts the key features of these two paradigms.

TABLE 1: PARADIGMS OF RESEARCH

Traditional Paradigm Current Paradigm

High IQ means giftedness

Trait based

Elitism

Innate

Test driven

Authoritarian (you are or are not

gifted)

School orientation

Ethnocentric

There are many types of giftedness

Qualities based

Individual excellence

Based on context

Achievement-outcomes driven

Collaborative (determined by

consultation)

Field and domain oriented

Diverse

(Piirto, 1998, p. 56).

According to Amabile (1983, 1996) and Feldman et al. (1994), three characteristics of the

‘current’ paradigm are most relevant to the present study: (a) the use of a systems approach, (b)

the worldview of contextualism, and (c) the dual criterion of novelty and appropriateness. A

brief overview of each of these three characteristics is provided below.



2.4.2 Systems approach

The difficulties associated with the ‘traditional’ paradigm of performance and creativity research

produced a shift away from the study of individual attributes, such as intelligence and

personality traits, toward a ‘systems approach’. From this perspective, phenomena such as

performance and creativity may be viewed as a ‘complex’ or ‘syndrome’ (Guastello, 1995;

Goertzel, 1997; Montuori & Purser, 1999; Runco, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2007), an ‘evolving

system’ (Wallace & Gruber, 1989), a ‘complex adaptive system’ (Richards, 1996; Stacey, 1996,

2011), or a ‘bio-psycho-social’ phenomenon (Engel, 1977; Dacey & Lennon, 1998). Appendix 9

provides a more detailed review of the ‘confluence’ view of performance and creativity which

encapsulates a diverse range of systems studies of performance and creativity. Appendix 9 also

provides a detailed review of nine separate literatures which the systems perspective seeks to

integrate. The nine perspectives on performance and creativity contained in Appendix 9 are:

1. Innate ability,

2. Learned expertise,

3. Personality-behavioural preference,

4. Purposeful-ideal seeking behaviour,

5. Motivation-affect,

6. Organisational structure and functioning,

7. Context and opportunity,

8. Creative processes,

9. Confluence.

The systems perspective shifts attention away from the identification of traits ‘inside the head’,

toward an examination of influences which are distributed across a complex multi-leveled,

multi-process system (Barab & Plucker, 2002). According to Dai (2010), the attainment of PCP,

“is not prespecified or preordained in biology but determined by a combination of multiple

factors; person (biology), domain (culture), social context (age peers), and developmental timing

(epigenesist)...gifted behaviours are not a constant but can emerge and disappear” (Dai, 2010,

p.20). Emery (1977) has discussed the related concept of ‘equifinality’ (i.e. the capacity for a

system to achieve similar ends by differing means). Feldman et al. (1994) and Dai (2010) have

also argued that, when viewed from a systems perspective, accurate assessment of individual

‘potential’ is no longer possible, or important, because performance and creativity are no longer

the property of an individual, but rather a ‘system property’.



2.4.3 Contextualism

According to Feldman et al. (1994), the DIFI framework and systems perspective shifts focus

away from the ‘traditional’ question; ‘what is creativity/performance?’, to questions such as;

‘where is creativity/performance?’, ‘how do new ideas occur?’, ‘who decides what is creative?’,

‘how are new ideas brought into expression?’, ‘what conditions favour creative outcomes?’, and

‘how does the match between the domain, individual and field explain creativity/performance?’.

Accordingly, Feldman et al. (1994), argue that the DIFI framework is grounded in the

worldview of ‘contextualism’ (Pepper, 1942), and the ‘logic of relations’ (Peirce, 1984, 1986,

1989; Emery & Emery, 1997). The introduction of a contextual view of performance and

creativity has three implications: (a) performance and creativity become defined by the context,

(b) performance and creativity are phenomena which are co-created by their context, and (c)

performance and creativity become a dynamic rather than static phenomenon.

By definition, the contextual worldview (Pepper, 1942) implies a shift toward the use of a socio-

cultural or authentic assessment (Dai, 2010), and away from traditional intra-individual

assessments such as intelligence testing. According to Borland (1997) the socio-cultural

approach recognises that performance and creativity are conferred to serve a social purpose.

Intriguingly, Albert (1992) has noted that the use of a socio-cultural definition was favoured

during the earliest years of performance and creativity research. Illustrating this point, Galton

(1869) argued that genius should be identified by “achieved distinction, or reputation...the

opinion of contemporaries, revised by posterity...the reputation of a leader of opinion, of an

originator, of a man to whom the world deliberately acknowledges itself largely indebted”

(Galton, 1869, p. 33).

Amabile (1983, 1996) has introduced the most widely accepted contemporary conceptualisation

of the socio-cultural assessment of creativity termed the ‘consensual definition’. According to

this conceptualisation, creativity is determined by consensus opinion among recognised experts

within a specific domain. According to Amabile (1983), usage of this approach means that

creativity is “fundamentally and unavoidably social” (Amabile, 1983, p. 101). Moreover,

Feldman et al. (1994) argue that the social nature of the assessment makes the concept no less

valid or real. In Feldman et al.’s (1994) view:

Creativity is not an attribute of individuals but of social systems making judgements

about individuals...creativity is not a natural kind, a trait that can be measured

objectively...rather it is an attribution based on the current conditions of a social

system-more like judgements of taste, beauty or goodness. To say that creativity is



relative...does not mean that it is any less important, or less real, that if it had an

independent, objective existence (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 145).

According to Dai (2010), one key benefit of the consensual definition is that it:

Demystifies the process of how giftedness is constructed...it removes the guise of

objective truth regarding intelligence, giftedness and talent and reveals possible

subjectivity, biases, even arbitrariness involved in construction of these psychological

realities. Most of all, it challenges us to reconsider various theories of giftedness as

socially constructed hypothetical models, rather than objective realities independent of

the observer or instruments of observation (Dai, 2010, p. 16).

One of the most comprehensive descriptions of the consensual definition is provided by Albert

(1983), who states that:

One should look to persons of recognised eminence for genius, since genius is

evidenced in a consensus of peers and is operationalized through the various reward

procedures that every society and profession has for acknowledging members

contributions...eminence is built on influence and is social, as well as individual, in

origin and behavioural in nature. For these reasons eminence can only be built on

public acts....Acknowledgement usually occurs through the work being referred to often

and being explicitly incorporated in others work....Its degree of ‘fit’ within the field

around it can only be determined empirically...overcome others resistance, a resistance

that is understandable...it often takes a generation of education to overcome resistance

through further explanation (Albert, 1983, p. 63).

Importantly, Eysenck (1995) points out that performance and creativity cannot be defined

exclusively as a socio-cultural phenomenon, and that such an approach, represents a strong

form of socio-cultural determinism. Similarly, Sexton and Smilor (1986), Sawyer (2006), and

Simonton (2008), argue that it is equally inappropriate to adopt a strong bio-psychological

perspective which defines performance and creativity exclusively in terms of endogenous

variables. Integrating these two perspectives, Eysenck (1995) suggests that:



Supreme creative achievement, socially recognised over the centuries, is the product of

many components acting synergistically ...creativity may or may not issue in creative

achievement, depending on the presence of the many other qualifications and

situational conditions...creativity can be measured and shown to be a necessary but not

sufficient condition for great achievement (Eysenck, 1995, p. 7).

Recognising the various points made above, there is now broad consensus within the literature

that the consensual method (Amabile, 1983, 1996), is a valid, useful, and appropriate method for

defining and identifying performance and creativity (Child, 1962; Feldman et al., 1994; Amabile,

1996; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006). According to Sawyer (2006), members of the field tend to

agree with one another in their judgement of creative work; however, an even higher correlation

exists among the judgements of experts. Moreover, Sawyer (2006) argues that “trained experts

agree because they have internalized the conventions of their domain, and these conventions

include the criteria for judgement” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 125). Further validating the usage of the

consensual approach, Eysenck (1995) has concluded that “the first part of Galton’s hypothesis

receives considerable support. Eminence, as judged by reputation, is a good guide to genius in

all the disciplines and specialities where tests have been carried out” (Eysenck, 1995, p. 36).

Dissenting views regarding the appropriateness of the consensual approach are offered by

Mackinnon (1992), Morelock (1996), Gallagher (2000), and Robinson, Zigler and Gallagher

(2000).

The contextual view, implies that performance and creativity are co-created by the individual

and their context. Until recently, ‘context’ has rarely been thought of as a significant variable in

its own right (Galton, 1869; Piaget, 1972; Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Gardner, 1993; Feldman et

al., 1994; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Borman, Motowidlo & Schmit, 1997; Barab & Plucker,

2002; Ziegler, 2005; Weisberg, 2006; Glaveanu, 2014). According to Sawyer, (2006), if we

embrace the contextual worldview, “we can’t explain creativity…(as) a trait of individuals...Our

creativity myths lead us to try and identify a creator who is responsible...but this is a fruitless and

impossible search because there is no single creator (Sawyer, 2006, p.134). The DIFI framework

suggests that performers and creators are open purposeful systems that are capable of

influencing and being influenced by their environment. According to Emery (1999) and Dai

(2010), it is appropriate therefore, to conceptualise the contribution of the performers and

creators in functional terms (i.e. in terms of what these individuals do and how their

contribution affects or changes the environment around them).



The DIFI framework also brings into focus, the issue of domain specificity or generality.

Evidence supporting the domain specific view of performance and creativity (in contrast to the

traditional domain general view) as is provided by Gibson (1966, 1979), Feldman and Goldsmith

(1991), Snow (1992), Tannenbaum (1997), Cronbach (2002), Ackerman (2003a,b), Ericsson et al.

(2006), Matthews and Foster (2006), Dai and Renzulli (2008), and Dai (2010). Echoing these

findings, MacKinnon (1992) has argued that traditional studies of the ‘highly effective individual’

“raise too general a question. More specific questions must be asked: Effective in what way?

Effective for what? Effective in what field or profession?” (Mackinnon, 1992, p. 185). Useful

functional definitions of creativity are also provided by Albert (1992), Gardner (1993), Feldman

et al. (1994), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), Csikszentmihalyi (1997) and Simonton (2008).

According to Feldman et al. (1994):

The meaning that is of primary interest to us here is creativity as the achievement of

something remarkable and new, something which transforms and changes a field of

endeavour in a significant way. In other words, we are concerned with the kinds of

things that people do that change the world (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 1).

In Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) view:

The definition that follows from this perspective is: Creativity is any act, idea, or

product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a

new one. And the definition of a creative person is: someone whose thoughts or

actions change a domain, or establish a new domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 28).

Similarly, Simonton (2008) states that eminence refers to: “the total global impact an individual

has made upon a given domain” (Simonton, 2008, p. 682), and Bennis and Ward-Biederman

(1997) define ‘great groups’ as those who have “reshaped the world in very different but

enduring ways...altered our shared reality in some significant way” (Bennis & Ward-Biederman,

1997, p. 2). Summarising the themes outlined above, Albert (1992) offers this comprehensive

definition:

A person of genius is anyone who, regardless of other characteristics...produces, over a

long period of time, a large body of work that has a significant influence on many

persons for many years; requiring these people, as well as the individual in question to

come to terms with a different set of attitudes, ideas, viewpoints, or techniques....that is

a sense of resolution and closure (Albert, 1992, p. 63).



Recognising the co-evolutionary nature of performance and creativity, Emery (1999a) argues

that the examination of the system-in-environment is the appropriate unit of analysis, and that

methods such directive correlation analysis are appropriate for examining the ways in which the

system and environment co-evolve over time.

The contextual view implies that performance and creativity should be understood in dynamic

terms. The development of effectivities, such as skills and capabilities of the individual (Feldman

& Goldsmith, 1991; Feldhusen & Jarwan, 1993; Ramachandran et al., 1999; Ericsson, 1996), and

changes in affordances, such as opportunities provided by the domain or broader environment

(Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Runco, 2006), may alter the likelihood, timing and nature of the

performance or creativity which is achieved. For instance, Gardner, (1993) and Csikszentmihalyi

(1997) have both argued that creative works which may go unrecognised during one historical

period, may become highly prized during another period. Similarly, Simonton (1999) and Runco

(2006) have discussed the ways in which the ‘zeitgeist’, or ‘spirit of the times’, has a similar effect

on creative achievement.

In a statement which ties together the contextual and dynamic nature of performance and

creativity, Dai (2010) argues that we now have a:

New understanding of giftedness as a dynamic rather than static phenomenon, as a

functional state rather than a trait...in effect, this new approach to giftedness as an

emergent, changing property of person-environment interaction that grows and

becomes more differentiated over time…this changing conception of intelligence

represents a trend away from the essentialist approach to a more functional

approach...intelligence as fit execution of a task or role…The argument that exceptional

performance is situated in a context undermines the notion that a person can be ‘gifted’

regardless of specific performance niches and socio-cultural contexts (Dai, 2010, pp.

20-49).

2.4.4 Novelty and appropriateness

There appears to be a general consensus (with the exception of Weisberg (2006)) that, regardless

of its form (i.e. product, performance, paradigm (Rhodes, 1961; Feldman et al., 1994)), and

regardless of the domain (i.e. business, sport or the arts), there are two dimensions which

determine the degree to which a performer or creator will influence his or her context. The dual

criterion used to define creativity are (a) ‘novelty’ and (b) ‘appropriateness’ (Feldman &



Goldsmith, 1991; Feldman et al., 1994; Amabile, 1996; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Piirto,

1998; Runco, 2006; Ericsson et al., 2006; Sternberg, 2007).

The concept of ‘appropriateness’ relates to the dimension of ‘familiarity’ in decision making

(Emery, 1999a). According to Bohm, (2002) appropriateness is ‘similarity’ with what has gone

before. Both Amabile (1983) and Sawyer (2006) have shown that appropriateness is culturally

and historically defined by social groups, and that solutions which are perceived as appropriate

in a particular historical period and cultural location, are often associated with success and

power. In contrast, the concept of ‘novelty’ relates to the dimensions of ‘relative intention’ and

‘relative effectiveness’ in decision making (Emery, 1999a). According to Bohm, (2002), novelty

is ‘difference’ with what has gone before. As with appropriateness, novelty is culturally and

historically defined (Feldman et al., 1994). Creative individuals and creative works that are not

regarded highly in one historical-geographic period or place, may become highly regarded in

another (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006). Echoing these findings, the literature relating to

‘paradigm shifts’ (Kuhn, 1970), ‘disruptive technologies’ (Christiensen, 1997) and ‘punctuated

equilibria’ (Bak, 1999) also suggest that novelty is rarely accepted immediately. Often, novel

changes are regarded as being appropriate with the passing of time, often posthumously (Lewin,

1948; Emery & Oezer, 1958; Kuhn, 1970; Emery & Trist, 1972; Barker, 1993; Utterback, 1996;

Christiensen, 1997, Tushman & O’Reilly, 2002; Hargadon, 2003).

Paralleling the finding that creative works are novel and appropriate, is the suggestion that

creative work represent a balance between ‘similarity’ and ‘difference’ (Bohm & Peat, 1989;

Bohm, 2002), ‘new’ and ‘old’ (Dai, 2010), and ‘lateral’ and ‘vertical thinking’ (De Bono, 1976).

Also aligned with this proposition is Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) distinction between ‘big C’ and

‘little c’ creativity, Kant (1764) and Pepper’s (1970) conceptualisation of beauty, Ariew’s (1976)

description of the parsimonious, or elegant solution, Kuhn (1970) and Barker’s (1993) notion of

the paradigm shift, and Albert’s (1992) suggestion that works which are simultaneously novel

and appropriate, may produce a sudden dislocation which is more than the simple extension of a

domain. Moreover, the dual criterion of novelty and appropriateness, have also emerged from

research on humour (Tomkins, 1962; Runco, 2006), in the musical literature (i.e. the balance

between ‘tension’ and ‘release’, and ‘consonance’ and ‘dissonance’) (Nachmanovitch, 1991;

Sabatella, 1996), in relation to the so called ‘golden ratio’ (Livio, 2003), and in the examination

of the ways in which creative individuals are both ‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’ with their

contexts (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Gardner, 1993).

There is a substantial body of evidence establishing the biological and psychological basis

underpinning the dual criterion of novelty and appropriateness. For instance, Tomkins (1962)

and Deckers (2005) argue that human beings have biologically evolved to: (a) seek novelty, (b)



master and control their environment, and (c) develop social relationships. Similarly,

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) suggests that humans will do what they ‘must do’, as well as what they

‘can do’. Furthermore, Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that the tendency to master and control one’s

environment results in the learning of ‘patterns’ which become ‘automatized’, and that such

patterns subsequently determine the type of stimuli that is perceived as being appropriate.

Similarly Schein (1996), De Bono (1976), and Kuhn (1970), argue that such patterns become;

‘unconsciously held’, ‘taken for granted assumptions’, or ‘paradigms’. Representing another

perspective, Koffka (1935) and Kohler (1947) discuss the effects of ‘figure or ground’, and find

that the relationship between figure and ground influences perceptions regarding the degree of

novelty and appropriateness. According to Rothbart (1976) and Deckers (2005), however, the

appraisal of events may vary greatly between individuals, and similar stimuli may be perceived as

novel or appropriate depending on differing individual and group schemas.

There is a general consensus within the literature, that human perception of novelty and

appropriateness, is a dynamic phenomenon which changes with exposure (Krugman, 1943;

Mull, 1957; Jackendoff, 1992; North & Hargreaves, 1997; Deckers, 2005). According to

Tomkins (1962) and Deckers (2005), human beings respond well to events which they consider

as being novel and appropriate, however, differences in individual appraisals of the ratio

between novelty and appropriateness may generate either positive ‘eustress’, or negative

‘distress’. The presence of novelty, generates incongruity and discrepancy (Deckers, 2005),

interest and excitement (Tomkins, 1962), increased curiosity and looking time (Leckart & Bakan;

1965; Berlyne, 1970; Faw, 1970; Nicki & Moss, 1975), and orienting responses (Deckers, 2005).

In contrast, the perception of objects or events as appropriate, generates understanding and

resolution, reduces arousal, and produces feelings of safety (Godkewitsch, 1976; Ruch, 1993).

The absence of novelty is shown to produce boredom (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), and a desire to

avoid or escape from repetitiveness, simplicity, and the associated lack of stimulation (Tomkins,

1962; Zuckerman, 1964; Rossi & Solomon, 1964; Smith & Myers, 1966; Martindale, 1999;

Kotler & Armstrong, 2011). According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975), Lazarus & Folkman (1984)

and Deckers (2005), however, lack of appropriateness is related to feelings of anxiety, negative

affect, puzzlement, and confusion and stress. Furthermore, Runco (2006) has argued that,

events or objects which lack appropriateness, are often regarded as being bizarre, or merely

aesthetic.

Deckers (2005) summarises the findings above in the following way:

A novel stimulus is one that is new and different from the stimuli to which a person has

become accustomed...The complexity variable is determined by the number of elements

and the dissimilarity of those elements in a stimulus array. The incongruity variable



refers to the difference between a single element in the stimulus array that conflicts

with or is discrepant from accompanying stimulus elements or from previous elements

(Deckers, 2005, p. 138).

Furthermore Deckers (2005) argues that:

Mildly novel stimuli evoke interest and orienting responses, while extremely novel

stimuli are judged strange and lead to withdrawal. Orienting responses imply that the

organism is investigating a novel stimulus...Extremely novel or strange stimuli, on the

other hand evoke defensive reactions such as fear and avoidance...uncertain positive

situations produce curiosity, interest and hope while uncertain negative situations

produce anxiety and fear (Deckers, 2005, p. 376).

When taken together, the findings above (i.e. that creative individuals produce works which are

novel and appropriate, and that creative work represents the highest level of performance in a

domain), suggest that highly regarded creative works require, not only, a balance of novelty and

appropriateness, but also that both dimensions be present in high degree. High levels of novelty

and appropriateness may, therefore, be one of the underlying reasons (i.e. biological or

psychological reasons) why creative works are: (a) recognised by experts within a domain, and

(b) regarded as having fundamentally transformed that domain.

2.4.5 Emergence of a definable field

As the ‘current’ paradigm of performance and creativity research has evolved, at least four

developments have coalesced around the notion that the fragmented, compartmentalised and

multi-disciplinary performance and creativity literature (see Appendix 9), may be regarded as

single integrated field of inquiry.

The introduction of the systems perspective, has shifted the focus of performance and creativity

research away from a limited range of endogenous factors, toward an examination of the ways in

which a broad range of influences come together to produce performance and creativity. By

necessity, such a perspective requires the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach which

integrates literatures from the nine different streams of research outlined in Appendix 9 under

the umbrella of a single field of inquiry. According to Feldman et al. (1994), the systems

frameworks which constitute the ‘current paradigm’ of performance and creativity research

merely form a starting point from which more useful and nuanced frameworks may develop. In



addition to the description above regarding the systems approach utilised by the ‘current’

paradigm of performance and creativity research, Appendix 9 provides a more detailed historical

overview of the developments in systems theory and systems research (ranging from early

General Systems theory to more recent research into Complexity theory, Quantum theory and

theories of Autopoiesis).

The emergence of the systems perspective has been paralleled by a growing consensus within

the literature that an adequate explanation for performance and creativity may only be possible

via the conduct of interdisciplinary research. According to Ericsson et al. (2006) and Pershing

(2006), the eclectic body of literature examining performance and creativity can now be regarded

as constituting a definable field of inquiry. Echoing this view, Findlay and Lumsden (1988)

argue that it is valid and appropriate to regard the creativity literature as a single interdisciplinary

field. As this consensus has emerged, an increasing number of international handbooks have

also been published (covering a wide range of topics including ‘expertise and expert

performance’ (Ericsson et al., 2006), ‘giftedness and talent’ (Heller et al., 1993), ‘human

performance technology’ (HPT) (Pershing, 2006), and ‘creativity’ (Feldman et al., 1994;

Sternberg, 1998; Runco, 2006; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010)) which reinforce the need to

integrate the literature. An illustrative example of efforts that have been made to integrate the

literature is provided by Pershing (2006), who argues that:

HPT is a derivative field that for over a half of a century has evolved from a number of

disciplines…Eclectic as this all sounds, HPT has grown to become a distinct specialty

with its own international, national, and local professional societies as well as numerous

publications, university programs, and certification structures that lend it credence. It

has emerged as a domain of practice that is increasingly relevant, if not essential, for

today’s organizational success (Pershing, 2006, p. xiii).

In addition to the introduction of the systems approach, growing calls for interdisciplinary

research, and the publication of literature which draws the field together, there has also been the

publication of several frameworks and typologies which provide the means for conceptualising

different types of performance and creativity, and the relationships between them, in an

integrated manner (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Gardner, 1993; Emery, 1999b; Runco, 2006).

Regarding the development of such typologies Findlay and Lumsden (1988) suggest that:

There is a property of the creative process so obvious as to immediately call our whole

enterprise into question, namely, the remarkable diversity of its products. Our

construction has proceeded with an air of grand unification, based on the premise that



entities called discoveries exist, all sufficiently to justify their analysis within one

homogeneous system of explanation. Intuitively and historically nothing seems further

from the truth...Yet surprisingly, it is precisely this conclusion that appears to be

emerging from the modern philosophy of symbols, from the formal considerations of

cognitive science, and from evolutionary thinking (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988, p. 51).

Accordingly, Findlay and Lumsden (1988) argue that:

This discussion and its natural extensions suggest to us that the structure of the

universe of creative products may be governed by general organising principles: that

there is a framework or parsimonious set of frameworks in which we can begin to

relate the Fifth Symphony to King Lear to Guernica to the pneumatic tyre (Findlay &

Lumsden, 1988, p. 53).

The typology referred to by Findlay and Lumsden (1988) above, is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1: CREATIVITY FRAMEWORK

(Findlay & Lumsden, 1988, p. 54).



In Gardner’s (1993) view however, there are at least five types of creative performance that can

be identified;

a. Solution to well defined problem,

b. Development of an encompassing theory,

c. Creation of a frozen work,

d. Performance of a ritualised work, and

e. A high stakes performance.

According to Emery (1999a), a valid field of scientific inquiry must, among other things, be

based on well-defined concepts. Similarly, Eysenck (1995) discusses the usefulness of well-

established scientific concepts and argues that:

There are probably many objections that will be made to the very idea of treating

genius and creativity as proper subjects for a natural science approach...it may be asked

if genius and creativity actually exist. The obvious answer, of course, is that neither

‘exist’ in the sense that pigs or rocks can exist; both are scientific concepts like....any

number of concepts in physics for which the evidence is nothing like half as good as

that for genius and creativity. For the time being these are useful concepts, and worthy

of study (Eysenck, 1995, p. 9).

Finally, as outlined above, the literature which discusses the dual criterion of ‘novelty’ and

‘appropriateness’, suggests that the highest levels of human achievement involve both

performance and creativity. On balance, the literature above suggests that at the highest levels,

performance and creativity can be regarded as the same phenomenon. Creative work is an

outgrowth of high levels of performance within a domain. Moreover, such work represents the

highest level of performance that can be attained within a domain at a particular point in time.

Taken together, the four aspects of the literature examined above (i.e. the systems view, the

emergence of calls for interdisciplinary research, the development of integrating typologies, and

the dual criterion of novelty and appropriateness), may provide a rationale for conducting future

research into performance and creativity using the broader concept of Peak Creative

Performance (PCP). Such an approach, may, not only offer a fruitful way to integrate the

existing literature, it may also provide a basis on which to examine patterns of PCP that extend

beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. The term PCP will therefore be used throughout the

remainder of the thesis.



2.4.6 Current conceptualisation

The ‘current’ paradigm attempts to overcome many of the limitations which were associated

with the traditional paradigm. Glaveanu (2014) has described the ‘current paradigm’ of

performance and creativity research as the ‘We-paradigm’ (i.e. that creativity takes place within,

is constituted and influenced by, and has consequences for, a social context). This is consistent

with Pepper’s (1942) worldview of ‘Contextualism’, and the intentions of researchers such as

Feldman et al. (1994). According to Feldman et al. (1994), rather than asking ‘what is creativity?’

the current paradigm asks ‘where is creativity?’ In many respects the ‘current’ paradigm has

shifted performance and creativity research away from Emery’s (2000) ‘Idealism’, the use of

‘Abstract Universals’ and ‘closed systems’ thinking, toward a stream of knowledge which is

underpinned by a philosophy of ‘Realism’, the use of ‘Material Universals’ and ‘open systems’

thinking. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, both Feldman et al. (1994), Emery

(2011), and Glaveanu (2014), acknowledge that the ‘current’ paradigm does not satisfactorily

complete this task. The limitations associated with the ‘current’ paradigm are discussed in more

detail in Section 2.4.8.

2.4.7 Illustration

An illustration of the ‘current’ paradigm is outlined below in three case studies; Darwin, Einstein

and McClintock. Each case provide a different understanding of the way in which contextual

factors shape the emergence of PCP. The case of Einstein illustrates the importance of the ‘fit’

between the individual and the context. The cases of Darwin and McClintock, however,

illustrate the ways in which creative insight emerges from the ‘allocentric’ perception of the

environment, rather than from the ‘autocentric’ approach which is favoured by the ‘traditional’

paradigm.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the world was changing rapidly, particularly in scientific

domains (Newbold, 1999). The Jewish community, of which Einstein was part of, were not

subjected to egregious anti-Semitism, and were able to take opportunities to improve standards

of living which had not previously existed. According the Gardner (1993), Einstein possessed a

combination of logical-mathematical, visual-imaginative, and spatial talents, however, his

language-literacy and social abilities were less developed. Einstein is reported to have been

extraordinarily curious about physics, scientific puzzles, objects, and the physical forces

surrounding objects from an early age; adopting, was has been described as, a playful-childlike

approach (Gardner, 1993). Notwithstanding Einstein’s mathematical aptitude, his preference for

independent thought and his dislike for regimentation, made his school years difficult (however

this was not the case during his time at the progressive Canton school (Gardner, 1993, p.92)).



During this period there was a preference for German scientists to think through problems

visually (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 180; Newbold, 1999, p. 153). There was, therefore, a

fortuitous co-incidence between the visual-spatial and mathematical abilities possessed by

Einstein, and the preferred mode of scientific thinking at the time. According to Gardner (1993)

and Newbold (1999), it is this co-incidence which enabled Einstein’s ‘Gedanken’ (i.e. ‘thought’

experiments) to be received favourably by others within the physics community. Moreover,

Gardner (1993) argues that, at the time of Einstein’s discoveries, the domain of physics was

‘ripe’ for a ‘paradigm-shift’ (Gardner, 1993, p. 96). Furthermore, according to Gardner (1993),

the contributions of Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Mach, Michelson and Morley, Lorentz, and

Poincare overturned:

the Newtonian notion of instantaneous actions operating at a distance in favour of the

field as a fundamental variable in its own right. Energy could be located in

time…Maxwell explicitly rejected the notion of absolute time and space…mechanics as

the basis of physics was being abandoned…because its adaptability to the facts

presented itself finally as hopeless (Gardner, 1993, p. 98).

Gardner (1993) argues that the contributions of these researchers served to “strain the

Newtonian synthesis to its limits…(and that) by the latter part of the nineteenth century…the

principle strands of relativity theory should have been detectable…as a plausible basis for a

unified-field theoretical view of nature” (Gardner, 1993, pp. 100-101). According to Gardner

(1993), Einstein was placed perfectly, because he was someone who was steeped in the findings

of recent physics, but not so entrenched as to prevent him raising fundamental questions; he

was someone who was prepared to challenge senior figures and the status quo. Gardner (1993)

describes Einstein as having “a mind at once young and mature” (Gardner, 1993, p. 101).

Several events in Einstein’s life speak to this mixture of youth and maturity. On one hand, he

was an individual who had not graduated from school or gained entry into the polytechnic, who

had failed to secure an academic job, and who had not completed his dissertation. On the other

hand, he had been able to write a paper on special relativity, however, even in this paper

Einstein did not follow convention; he did not cite any literature, nor describe his methodology,

or provide any reference to any other scientist (Gardner, 1993, p. 109). Describing the

inevitability of relativity theory, and the fortuitous timing of Einstein’s contribution, Gardner

(1993) suggests that:

If neither of these older savants (Lorentz and Poincare) had cracked the issue of

relativity, it is virtually certain that someone of Einstein’s generation…would have done



so…Indeed, Einstein…himself expressed the view that…Paul Langevin would have

put forth the special theory, if he himself had not (Gardner, 1993, p. 106).

Further reinforcing this point, Einstein also expressed the view that “it is not improbable that

Mach would have discovered the theory of relativity, if, at the time when his mind was still

young…the problem…had been discussed among physicists” (Gardner, 1993, p. 127).

Einstein’s discovery may, therefore, be understood as being a product of the confluence of a

domain which was ripe for a paradigm change, and the presence of an individual, who at that

point in history, possessed a particular combination of talents (i.e. Einstein’s visual and

mathematical aptitudes, and his youth and maturity in physics). Moreover, Gardner (1993) has

argued that it is unlikely that Einstein’s genius would have been equally recognised if he had

pursued a different domain; “theoretical physics as it had evolved…was clearly the optimal area

for a man of his gifts” (Gardner, 1993, p. 129).

During the 1920’s and 1930’s, the development of quantum theory introduced a new direction

in physics. According to Gardner (1993), this shift resulted in Einstein becoming marginalised:

he struggled valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to construct a unified field theory, that would

synthesise quantum and relativity work…the disjunction between the adulation over his

work in the relativity era and the pained silences that greeted his work in the quantum-

mechanical era must have been…difficult for him to accept (Gardner, 1993, pp. 125-

126).

For Einstein, however, the timing, and the match between his talents and the requirements of

his domain were no longer optimal. Reflecting on this dilemma, Einstein said, “I have thought a

hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity”

(Gardner, 1993, p. 127). According to Gardner (1993), this immersion in quantum theory did

not produce any further breakthrough for Einstein because physics had changed, and Einstein

was no longer the right person (with the right blend of skills, aptitudes, youth and maturity) at

the right time. More specifically, Gardner (1993) argues that, “had the same person been born

twenty years later, his own talents and worldview might well have proved ill-suited to the

demands of a quantum-mechanical era” (Gardner, 1993, p. 127).

Literature which is drawn from the ‘current’ paradigm continues to portray the creative

processes adopted by Einstein in ‘traditional’ terms. According to Wallace and Gruber (1989),

Einstein was strongly influenced by the Kantian notion of ‘Anschauung’ (i.e. the visual mode of



mental imagery that is based on the formulation of abstractions which conceptualise phenomena

that have been witnessed in the world of sense perceptions). Great emphasis is placed upon

Einstein’s use of ‘thought’, or, ‘Gedanken’ experiments and his imaginative approach to science.

Indeed, Einstein himself stated in a letter to Grossman, “it is a wonderful feeling to recognise

the unifying features of a complex phenomenon which present themselves as quite unconnected

to the direct experience of the senses” (Gardner, 1993, p. 108). According to Wallace and

Gruber (1989), Einstein was involved in conducting thought experiments that went “beyond the

data of sense perception” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 172), and that the “laws of nature could

not be induced from empirical data or from data of the senses…the new intuition that Einstein

arrived at…was at a higher level of abstraction” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 179). Moreover,

Gardner (1993, p. 112) argues that Einstein reversed the procedure of observing data to derive

theories, and instead, operated at a higher level of abstraction. Furthermore, according to

Gardner (1993), “if there was continuity from earlier work in physics…it seems undeniable that

Einstein accomplished an amazing feat. By sheer power of logical-mathematical reasoning and

visual-spatial imagination, aided by a willingness to take a bold stance and re-examine fist

principles” (Gardner, 1993, p. 112).

Notwithstanding this ‘traditional’ ‘autocentric’ depiction of the creative processes used by

Einstein, Wallace and Gruber (1989, p. 185) do, however, find this explanation to be an

inadequate account of Einstein’s insights. Moreover, there are several aspects of Einstein’s

approach which indicate that he adopted an ‘allocentric’ approach (Emery, 1999), and that he

used the method of ‘retroduction’ (Emery & Emery, 1997). There are reports that Einstein

developed his insights following long periods of intensive observation of mechanical, electrical

and physical phenomena, and the application of mathematical principles to real-world problems

throughout his childhood and adolescence. Einstein then engaged in thought experiments to

develop hypotheses, “but unlike the worlds contrived by pure mathematicians, these worlds

always bore resemblance to, and were governed by, the principles of physical reality” (Gardner,

1993, p. 105). His approach “combined the curiosity and sensibility of the young child with the

methods…of the mature adult” (Gardner, 1993, p. 93). Most importantly, Einstein placed

emphasis on the formulation of experiments which would provide the empirical basis upon

which his hypotheses regarding electromagnetism, the ether, and space-time could be tested.

Einstein was interested in the identification of fundamental principles, and he was aware that

“an academic career compels a young man to scientific production and only strong characters

can resists the temptation of superficial analysis” (Gardner, 1993, p. 108). According to Einstein,

“the longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the

discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results” (Gardner, 1993, p.

113). Moreover, according to Wallace and Gruber (1989), Einstein sought to understand “the

deep structure in a problem situation” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 172). A central concept



underpinning both the content and method of Einstein’s work, was the notion that “all forces,

are relative…Every single body in the universe stands in some definite relation with every

other…in terms of observable, definable phenomena” (Gardner, 1993, p. 99). This final quote

not only illustrates the content of Einstein’s work, but also demonstrates his commitment to the

worldview of ‘contextualism’ (Pepper, 1942).

The notebooks of Charles Darwin provide a detailed illustration of the ways in which he

interacted with his domain (an important aspect of the ‘current paradigm). Darwin was born

into an affluent family, his cousin was Sir Francis Galton, and his grandfather was a well-

recognised eighteenth century evolutionist. According to Wallace and Gruber (1989), following

the completion of his university studies at Edinburgh and Cambridge, Darwin began his

professional career in Geology. In 1831, at the age of twenty two, Darwin left England to serve

as the Naturalist on a five year voyage of the HMS Beagle. Throughout the Beagle voyage,

Darwin carefully documented a large number of observations about marine shells at high

altitudes, the effects of earthquakes, the formation of coral reefs, and the development of a wide

variety of species in the Galapagos Islands. During the collection of these observations Darwin

reflected on the work of Charles Lyell and subsequently developed an account of his Beagle

observations based upon “the central idea…of…gradualism- that great things could be

produced by long, continued accumulation of very small effects” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p.

111). Following the Beagle voyage, Darwin observed the behaviour of earthworms, the

formation of topsoil and vegetable mould, and was successful in “extending the basic theme of

gradualism to new areas” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 111). As Darwin developed classification

systems for the fossils, specimens and species that he had collected on the Beagle voyage, he

was influenced by orthinologist John Gould. This influence prompted Darwin to examine the

ways in which species could arise from other species. Moreover, this exchange, and the birth of

his son, prompted Darwin to consider how human beings could have formed gradually.

Importantly, Darwin’s approach to answering this question was based on “mountains of facts

rather than eons of reflection” (Gruber & Bodeker, 2005, p. 106). Accordingly, Darwin

conducted a myriad of experiments (i.e. soaking seeds in seawater to determine sources of island

vegetation; raising and crossbreeding pigeons to uncover descent relationships, planting plots of

different grasses to compare competitive advantages, dissecting embryos of different species to

show they more resembled each other than they did their adult forms). Moreover, Darwin

recognised that “it took patience and discipline to discover the ‘little means’ that were

responsible for great effects” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 115). Darwin subsequently spent

years carefully observing his son’s development and collecting information on human evolution.

Darwin sought to develop a more comprehensive explanation of evolution than one of his

major influences; Lamarck (1809). In parallel with this, Darwin continued to observe

phenomena and develop theories regarding the evolution of barnacles, the ways in which natural



selection worked on the hive (i.e. the system level) in bee colonies, and the way in which cattle

breeders used selection to produce valued future meats. The culmination of years of careful

observation, experimentation, and interaction with other thinkers in various fields, resulted in

the publication of Darwin’s seminal work ‘On the Origin of Species’.

The case of Darwin describes an individual who was strongly influenced by the domains of

geology, zoology, and evolutionary theory right throughout his childhood, adolescence and

adulthood. Darwin became an individual who according to Gruber and Bodeker (2005) was

steadfast in his industrious purposefulness, who worked tirelessly over a fifty year period (many

scholars have noted the length of time required for Darwin to publish his major work (Gruber,

1981; Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Gruber & Bodeker, 2005; Ruse, 2009)), making careful

observations of phenomena, who sought to provide adequate explanation for these observations

(including working to resolve unexpected findings such as the operation of natural selection in

bee colonies (Gruber & Bodeker, 2005)), and who interacted constantly with his field and

domain to gradually refine and develop his theory of evolution.

Gruber and Bodeker (2005) have compared the creative approach employed by Darwin with

that of the scientist Barbara McClintock (see Appendix 9 for further discussion). In Appendix 9,

Emery (1999) describes the difference between ‘autocentric’ perception and ‘allocentric’

perception; the former aligning with the philosophical assumptions of the ‘traditional’ paradigm

of performance and creativity, and the latter being more reflective of the ‘current’ PCP

paradigm. The approach adopted by Darwin and McClintock (and arguably Einstein) rely on an

intrinsic curiosity and the careful perception of phenomena in their natural environment

(including the way in which phenomena influence, and are influenced by, their environment).

The creative process is not confined to an intellectual exercise, but one which is fuelled by

positive affects, a desire to explore both known and unknown features of one’s environment,

and a willingness to account for, experimentally test, and solve unexpected observations.

McClintock studied the organism of maize and painstakingly looked for the cues of genetic

change. In a similar fashion to Darwin’s extended exploration of the unexpected phenomenon

of hive level natural selection in bees (Gruber & Bodeker, 2005), when McClintoch encountered

the unexpected problem of gene dislocation, she embarked on a six year search to discover the

general phenomenon of regulation and transportation of genes. She saw this problem as a clue

which may provide her with deeper insights that she had not suspected. Moreover, McClintoch,

like Darwin and Einstein, continued to work on her material for a period of twenty years despite

her work being misunderstood by the scientific community. McClintoch, like Darwin and

Einstein, chose the difficult path of trying to understand what made various phenomena tick

(i.e. by understanding the ways in which phenomena (genes) transact with their environment

(chromosomes) (Keller, 1983; Emery, 1999)). Appendices 9 and 10 provide a more detailed



overview of the relationship between the ‘current’ PCP paradigm, ‘allocentric’ perception, the

method of ‘retroduction’, the philosophical stream of ‘Realism’, ‘Open Systems Theory’, and the

notion of ‘serial-genetic’, or, ‘genotypical’ understandings (Emery, 2000).

Whilst the case studies of Einstein, Darwin and McClintock do not provide a comprehensive

overview of the ‘current’ paradigm of PCP, they do illustrate the ways in which the individual

interacts with the domain and field, the importance of timing and fit between the individual and

the context, and the way in which creative insights emerge out of the curious and careful

perception of phenomena and they ways in which phenomena transact with their environments.

The case studies also illustrate the stark contrast between the ‘current’ PCP paradigm and the

‘traditional’ paradigm (which emphasised the role of innate ability, psychological traits and the

use of intellectual thought processes).

2.4.8 Limitations

Notwithstanding the progress made by the ‘current’ paradigm to establish a systemic and

contextual understanding of PCP, Glaveanu (2013) argues that the this paradigm of research has

struggled to move beyond the fundamentally individualistic ideology of the ‘traditional’

paradigm. Illustrating this point Glaveanu (2013) argues that:

As a feature widely distributed in the population, a potential each of us has, came to the

fore. This ‘democratisation’ of creativity however did not lead to its socialisation or, for

this matter, to a theory that moves beyond cognition and personality (Glaveanu, 2013,

p. 3).

Echoing these sentiments Feldman et al. (1994) argue that “no rival paradigm had dislodged it

(the ‘traditional’ paradigm), despite widespread dissatisfaction and a growing sense of its

limitations (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 4). One primary difficulty associated with the ‘current’

paradigm is the duality of modernity (i.e. ‘endogenous’ vs ‘contextual’; ‘inside’ vs. ‘outside’).

According to Glaveanu (2014), the ‘current’ paradigm fails to account for the ‘distributed’ nature

of creativity. The ‘current’ paradigm has been successful in problematizing the exclusive focus

on the individual and endogenous factors, however, it fails to adequately account for the

interdependence between the ‘person’ and the ‘environment’; particularly the ways in which

creative action is simultaneously socially, materially and temporally distributed (Emery, 1999;

Glaveanu, 2014). According to Glaveanu (2014), the context is not merely a conditioning factor,

but is instead, there is a co-evolution between the ‘person’ and their ‘environment’. Moreover, in

Glaveanu’s (2014) view:



“Creative action is an excellent illustration of distribution since it clearly engages the

individual and his/her psychological processes…Distributed creativity is not creativity

without the person but creativity that takes as its rightful unit of analysis the ‘person in

context’…the creative actor exists only in relation to different audiences, the new

artefact is connected to existing cultural artefacts, and creative action exploits the

affordances of the socio-cultural environment…this framework helps us…go beyond

non-distributed views that tend to locate creativity either within the person or the

product. This is a traditional stance within psychological science since it helps…make a

strong claim for why creativity should primarily be studied by this

discipline…distributed creativity can only be an interdisciplinary endeavour’ (Glaveanu,

2014, p. 82).

One means of understanding the co-evolutionary nature of performance and creativity is

captured by Glaveanu’s (2013) concept of ‘affectivating environments’. Glaveanu (2013, 2014)

suggests that the co-evolution of the ‘person’ and the social and material aspects of their

environment, has an influence on ‘affects’; a variable which independently acts to influence the

production of creative works (see Appendix 9). Perhaps more importantly, Glaveanu (2014)

argues that both the ‘traditional’ and ‘current’ paradigms fail to ask the question ‘where does

creativity start and where does it end’? Such a question brings into focus the temporal,

developmental and co-evolutionary nature of PCP. It goes beyond the questions raised by the

‘traditional’ and ‘current’ paradigms; ‘what is creativity’? and ‘where is creativity’?, and recognises

that PCP is influenced by things such as the craft that the PCPer learns years earlier, the

enjoyment of the work, the process of problem solving, the way in which the PCPer works with

colleagues, the act of communicating the creative work to others, and the historical period in

which the creative work is produced. The notion of distributed creativity, therefore, suggests

that there is an ‘and’ rather than a ‘versus’ relationship between individual and social creativity.

Montuori and Purser (1997) and Glaveanu (2014) argue that the ‘distributed’ perspective enables

researches to overcome the methodological limitations associated with individualism,

reductionism and static research methods. For instance, Glaveanu (2014) argues that:

“the problem in this case is not that we do not study creativity at different levels…but

that we keep these levels distinct and reduce our explanation to just one of

them…much more ingenuity in research is required to capture multifaceted, systemic



and developmental processes…creativity research, more than many other topics,

confronts researchers with this enormous complexity” (Glaveanu, 2014, pp. 86-87).

More specifically, Glaveanu (2014) argues that the notion of ‘distributed creativity’ overcomes

the difficulties associated with the psychometric tests of intelligence, personality and divergent

thinking favoured by the ‘traditional’ paradigm. According to Glaveanu (2014), there is a

requirement to focus more on what creators actually ‘do’ rather than on test results. Moreover,

Glaveanu (2014) argues not only that psychometric tests can not match the complexity of

everyday life, but also that they remain silent about the co-evolution of individual abilities and

environmental affordances.

As outlined in greater detail in Appendix 9, there are several limitations associated with the

‘confluence’ perspective of performance and creativity. Notwithstanding the efforts of such

studies to incorporate the ‘distributed’ nature of performance and creativity (i.e. via the

examination of systemic patterns which connect biological, psychological, sociological and

contextual factors), this body of research lacks the theoretical framework and methodological

tools needed to precisely understand how a person co-evolves which their environment such

that patterns of performance and creativity may be identified, and the bi-directionality of

influences which contribute to performance and creativity may be understood. Confluence

studies typically explain performance and creativity as being a low probability outcome which

emerges when there is the fortuitous confluence of several influences (i.e. when an individual

reaches a peak on the ‘fitness landscape’ (Kauffman, 1996) or when the system has reached a

state of ‘self-organised criticality’ (Bak, 1999)). Perhaps paradoxically, several of the confluence

studies which have been conducted within the ‘current’ paradigm have the additional limitation

of producing models which are overly complex (i.e. they fail to clearly identify the key causal

relationships), and this has further limited their usefulness and influence in the literature (Dai,

2010). In addition, Emery (2011) has critiqued confluence studies for their failure to utilise a

theoretical framework and methodological approach which adequately defines the concepts

used, provides the capacity to identify the theoretical relationships between qualitatively

different variables, or enables researchers to derive testable propositions about how variables

empirically relate to one another. Moreover, as has been argued by Emery (2011) in Appendix 9,

these difficulties arise because many of the confluence studies are more appropriately located

within Pepper’s (1942) worldview of ‘Organicism’ rather than that of ‘Contextualism’. Existing

confluence studies of performance and creativity have also been critiqued because they have

utilised a relatively limited range of research methods, offered limited means why which

qualitative and quantitative data may be combined, and examined a narrow range of

performance and creativity types (Feldman et al., 1994; Dai, 2010).



Sections 2.3 and 2.4 describe the evolution of performance and creativity research. In addition

to this literature review, Appendix 9 provides a more detailed overview of nine streams of

research which are relevant to the development of a comprehensive understanding of PCP.

There is a general consensus (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006; Glaveanu, 2014) that the way

in which the literature has evolved, has produced a field of research which is large, multi-

disciplinary, fragmented and compartmentalised. Moreover, notwithstanding the consensus that

PCP research would benefit from studies which are interdisciplinary in nature, there is currently

little understanding of the ways in which the findings from each of the different streams of

literature relate to one another, nor is there any theoretical framework which provides the means

by which this work may be adequately synthesised. Illustrating these points Eysenck (1995)

argues that:

The field of study of creativity had come to be a large scale example of a degenerating

research program...referring mainly…to the extremely bitsy nature of research and

findings. There were absent any signs of an overarching theory linking together the

many different aspects studied...clearly the absence of such theory leaves the whole

field unstructured and confused (Eysenck, 1995, p. 245).

Moreover, in Amabile’s (1996) view:

Throughout the history of psychological research on creativity, ideologically divergent

lines of work have remained almost completely separate. The dominant tradition,

personality and individual difference research, has proceeded fairly independently of the

other separate areas…each of these approaches has, of course produced information

useful to understanding the nature of creativity…ultimately however, progress in

creativity research will depend upon a unifying theoretical conceptualisation…including

all classes of factors that have been shown to affect creativity as well as those that have

been suggested but have yet to be investigated (Amabile, 1996, p. 269).

A related difficulty is the wide variety of definitions which have been used in relation to

performance and creativity. Creativity and performance are phenomena which, both scholars

and laypeople seem to recognise when they see them, but continue to find them obscure,

multifaceted, ethereal and difficult to define (Runco, 2006). Popular measures of the more

tangible aspects of performance have been established. For instance, according to the Guinness

Book of Records (2011):



A world record is more than a simple fact: it’s a means of understanding your position

in the world… a yardstick for measuring how you and those around you fit in.

Knowing the extremes – the biggest, the smallest, the fastest, the most and the least –

offers a way of comprehending and digesting an increasingly complex world overloaded

with information (Guinness Book of Records, 2011, n.p.).

According to Simonton (1999) however, “creativity and genius are...rather elusive qualities”

(Simonton, 1999, p. 679). Similarly, Dai (2010) argues that “the term gifted or giftedness has

never been more problematic than it is today…even in the scholarly discussion and educational

practice, the standards or criteria used to define the gifted are somewhat arbitrary” (Dai, 2010,

pp. 8-9). Eysenck and Barrett (1993, p. 115) go so far as to argue that; “the term gifted is

essentially undefined” Albert (1983) however, recognises that the primary difficulty lies in the

area of creativity. For instance, according to Albert (1992):

There is no more important or difficult task to undertake in science than to define

one’s terms and operations. What is meant by eminence, creativity…terms that loom

important in the discussion and understanding of achievement. From the earliest work

of Galton (1869), eminence has meant an achieved recognition and ranking by others

who are expert and experienced enough to appreciate particular performances and

results...the fact is there is little agreement as to what being creative and having

creativity mean (Albert, 1992, p. 7).

Indeed, the plethora of concepts used, makes defining performance and creativity fraught with

difficulty, and this has been “a consistent impediment to research in the area” (Findlay &

Lumsden, 1988, p. 9). Further illustrating the breadth of concepts used, a review of the literature

shows that the field of performance and creativity research encompasses studies of:

1. Success (Hill, 1928; Kraus, 2002),

2. Eminence (Albert, 1983, 1992),

3. Prodigiousness (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991),

4. Expertise and Expert Performance (Ericsson et al., 2006),

5. Excellence (Runco, 2006),

6. Record setting (Guinness Book of Records, 2011),

7. Championship (Snyder, 2002),

8. Optimal or peak experience (Maslow, 1964; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990;

Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992),



9. Giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986; Piirto, 1998),

10. Genius (Albert, 1983, 1992; Eysenck, 1995),

11. Savantism (Baumgarten, 1930; Feldman, 1980; Bossomaier & Snyder, 2004, Snyder,

2009),

12. Talent (Piirto, 1998),

13. Intelligence (Binet, 1915, Terman & Oden, 1959; Cronbach, 1990; Sternberg, 2007),

14. Innovation (Utterback, 1996; Hargadon, 2003; Christensen, 1997),

15. Entrepreneurship (Sexton & Smilor, 1986; Runco, 2006),

16. Creativity (Guilford, 1950; Feldman et al., 1994),

17. Beauty and art (Kant, 1764; Pepper, 1970),

18. Leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1990; Kotter, 1996),

19. Self Actualisation (Maslow, 1954; 1968),

20. Stewardship (Block, 1993),

21. Subjective wellbeing (John, Robins & Pervin, 2008),

22. Wisdom (Sternberg, 2007).

The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term ‘peak’ as being, “the highest point…the maximum

point or degree of anything…the maximum value of a quantity during a specified time…of

highest quality…to reach a highest point” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 924).

Furthermore the Macquarie Dictionary defines the terms ‘perform’ and ‘performance’ in the

following way:

To carry out; execute…to carry into effect…to act as on a stage…to execute (any skill

or ability) before an audience…execution or doing as of work, acts or feats…an action

or proceeding of a more or less unusual or spectacular kind…fulfils the purpose for

which it was intended…assisting in the performance of a sport by virtue of special

properties (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 933).

Performance is associated with the concepts of ‘efficiency’ (the ratio of output to input) and

‘effectiveness’ (the attainment of predetermined ends) (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010,

p.393). Notwithstanding this, performance also shares similarities with the concepts of

‘expertise’, ‘prodigiousness’ and ‘giftedness’. According to Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) the

prodigy can be defined as:

The rarefied situation in which extraordinary ability in a particular domain develops

exceedingly quickly...the prodigy stands both as exemplar and beacon, demonstrating

the power of optimal early expression of potential...the prodigy is the embodiment of a



remarkable confluence of biological and cultural potential...they represent a remarkable

coincidence of biological proclivity and cultural readiness and response” (Feldman and

Goldsmith, 1991, p. xi).

According to Ericsson et al. (2006, p. 1), expertise on the other hand, involves “the highest

levels of achievement and performance”, and is identified using reproducible superior

performance on representative standardised tasks with predetermined consensually established

best responses (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 2-3).

In contrast, ‘creativity’ is typically related to concepts such as, originality, innovation and

entrepreneurship. Popular usage of the terms ‘create’, ‘creative’ and ‘creativity’ (i.e. not the

academic definition of these terms) refers to:

The ability to see things from an unusual perspective and to produce from that insight a

new organization of familiar components, something that did not exist before,

something original…the products of creative thought (sometimes referred to as

divergent thought) are usually considered to have both originality and appropriateness...

Although intuitively a simple phenomenon, it is in fact quite complex... Unlike many

phenomena in science, there is no single, authoritative perspective or definition of

creativity. And unlike many phenomena in psychology, there is no standardized

measurement technique (Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2012, n.p.).

Runco (2006) makes a distinction between creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship and

argues that whilst there are overlaps between creativity and innovation, there are differences

with respect to the ratio of originality and effectiveness as well as the amount of predetermined

problem solving. According to Runco (2006):

Innovation represents one application of creative thinking. Innovation...(is) the

intentional introduction and application...of ideas, processes, products or procedures

that are new...(and) designed to benefit...The element need not be entirely novel or

unfamiliar...but it must involve some discernable change or challenge to the status

quo...a threshold of creativity is necessary for innovation...innovation is different from

creativity in the balance of originality to effectiveness (Runco. 2006, p. 381).



In a comprehensive review of the entrepreneurship literature, Sexton and Smilor (1986) make

the observation that, entrepreneurship, shares many of the difficulties associated with defining

creativity. It is a concept which is neither agreed upon or static. Entrepreneurship research is

fragmented and “this lack...is a shortcoming that misdirects research efforts and leads to lack of

a coherent body of research literature” (Sexton & Smilor, 1986, p. 367). Factors which appear to

differentiate entrepreneurship from creativity include its organisational focus, emphasis on

personal risk taking and calculated risks, opportunism, and emphasis upon achieving specific or

financial objectives (Sexton & Smilor, 1986).

Adopting a different perspective is the literature examining the broader notion of success.

Emphasis within this literature focuses on the optimisation of a range of interrelated and

competing objectives. For instance, Stanley (1905) composed the following essay to define the

meaning of success:

He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often and loved much; who has

gained the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children; who has filled his

niche and accomplished his task; who has left the world better than he found it,

whether by an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul; who has never

lacked appreciation of earth’s beauty or failed to express it; who has always looked for

the best in others and given them the best he had; whose life was an inspiration; whose

memory a benediction (Stanley, 1905, p. 1).

This brief review illustrates the difficulties in clearly defining concepts such as performance and

creativity. Moreover, it highlights the multiplicity of definitions which currently exist, and the

overlap between each of these definitions.

According to Feldman et al. (1994), Runco (2006), Ericsson et al. (2006) and Dai (2010), there

are several underlying tensions within the literature which underpin the definitional difficulties

discussed above. For instance, Feldman et al. (1994), Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) and

Emery (1999a) argue that many difficulties flow initially from the failure of researchers to clearly

specify the concepts they are using, or to use any agreed theoretical frameworks or established

methodology. Alternatively, Runco (2006) and Sternberg (2007) argue that there is a tension

between the historically separate concepts of ‘intelligence’ and ‘creativity’. This tension is

somewhat reflected in the complications which arise from usage of the term ‘giftedness’ for

both children (above the 97th percentile on intelligence tests) and eminent adults, and the



distinction between ‘schoolhouse’ and ‘creative-productive’ giftedness (Renzulli, 1999, 2005;

Siegler & Kotovsky, 1986; Sternberg, 2007).

The tension between ‘intelligence’ and ‘creativity’ is paralleled by the debate surrounding ‘expert

performance’ or ‘expertise’ and ‘creativity’. According to Gardner (1993), Tannenbaum (1997),

and Dai (2010), experts who have ‘mastered’ existing bodies of knowledge have historically been

regarded as distinct from ‘makers’ or ‘creators’. The latter group, are individuals who are

regarded as envisioning new possibilities, fashioning novel and valuable solutions, significantly

transforming an intellectual or practical domain, moving a field forward, or creating new fields

of endeavour (see Appendix 9 for a more detailed discussion of the relationship between

expertise, mastery and creativity).

Distinct from the difficulties outlined above, an epistemic tension also exists between the

notions of performance and creativity as ‘potential’ (typically measured as intelligence (Galton,

1869; Cattell, 1890; Spearman, 1923; Thurstone, 1973; Cronbach, 1990), compared with

‘authentic achievement’ (Heller et al., 1993; Sternberg, 1997). Compounding this difficulty is the

lack of clear definition regarding the underpinning concept of intelligence (Binet, 1915;

Guilford, 1950; Ackoff & Emery, 1972; Gardner, 1993; Sawyer, 2006; Sternberg, 2007; Dai,

2010).

Similarly, the literature often contains definitions of performance and creativity which

encompass an admixture of proxy concepts. For instance, such concepts may refer to variables

representing intermediate creative processes or conceptions of behaviour as representative of

achievement (Eysenck, 1995; Robbins, 1997; Snyder, 2001; Covey, 2004) and usage of such

definitions continues despite evidence of poor correlation between the various concepts

(Eysenck & Barrett, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006; Sternberg, 2007). Related to

this finding is the tension between the various types of creative work including, ‘big C’ creativity

which changes the world, and ‘little c’, everyday creativity (Gardner, 1993; Eysenck, 1995;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006). A similar tension exists in relation to the concepts of

expertise and ‘relative expertise’ (Ericsson et al., 2006).

Difficulties also arise from conceptions of performance and creativity as the product of innately

‘fixed’ or ‘static’ abilities (Galton, 1869) when compared with a view of performance and

creativity which assumes that individuals have the capacity to continually learn and therefore

possess ‘developing expertise’ (Gagne, 1993, 1995; Ericsson, 1996; Ramachandran, Blakeslee &

Sacks, 1999; Dai, 2010).



The literature contrasts the historical view of creativity as ‘problem solving’ (related to

intelligence and convergent thinking ability), (Dewey, 1916; Wallas, 1926; Flavell & Draguns,

1957; Guilford, 1967; Ackoff & Emery, 1972; De Bono, 1976; Ericsson et al., 2006; Bransford

& Stein, 1993; Klahr & Simon, 2000), with the markedly different contemporary notion of

creativity as ‘problem finding’ in an environment containing ‘messes of problems’ (Ackoff, 1974;

Sternberg, 1985; Langer, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998). The tension

between these perspectives produces definitions of creativity which may therefore represent

vastly different concepts.

Just as the literature utilises an admixture of proxy concepts, the literature also introduces

definitions of performance and creativity which appear to be based on the individual

psychological experience such as the ‘oceanic experience’ (Freud, 1928), ‘peak experience’

(Malsow, 1968) and ‘autotelic experience’ (Gallway, 1974; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Heller et al.,

1993; Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Whitmore, 2002) rather than the contextual assessment

recommended by Feldman et al. (1994) or the more positivist definition established by Ericsson

et al. (2006). Difficulties associated with the usage of individual psychological experience as

measures of performance or creativity also result from conflicting evidence regarding the

correlation between the two phenomena (Ravizza, 1973; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Heller et al.,

1993; Feldman et al., 1994; Amabile, 1996; Tannenbaum, 1997; Ericsson et al. 2006; Runco,

2006; Sawyer, 2006).

A tension also exists within the literature regarding the traditional ‘great man’ or individualistic

notions of performance and creativity (Galton, 1869; Albert, 1983), and the more contemporary

conceptualisation of performance and creativity as a product of ‘groups’, ‘networks’, ‘co-

creation’ and ‘collective action’ (Utterback, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Hargadon, 2003;

Sawyer, 2006; Runco, 2006).

Runco (2006) contrasts definitions of creativity which emphasise intentionality, purposefulness

and goal directedness (Wallace and Gruber, 1989; Weisberg, 2006), with those which emphasise

serendipitous achievement or constrained stochastic processes (Mandlebrot, 1977; Piirto, 1998;

Wolfram, 2002; Simonton, 2004) to illustrate the tension and definitional differences which arise

from these two approaches.

Finally, a large body of literature exists (Schaffer, 1988; Porter, 1990; Berggren, 1992; Kotter &

Heskett, 1992; Katzenbach & Smith, 1992; Sandberg, 1995; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Collins,

2001; Hubbard, Samuel, Cocks & Heap, 2002; Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005; Weick &

Sutcliffe, 2007) in relation to the multitude of ways that group and organisational performance

and creativity can be measured and, furthermore, the ways in which individual, group and



organisational performance and creativity are related. Clearly, with such a wide range of views,

several tensions exist within this literature. In view of these tensions, Dai (2010) concludes that

our conceptions of performance and creativity “are more pluralistic than ever...Here lie the

roots of crisis in the field” (Dai, 2010, p. 8).

Irrespective of the definitional difficulties or differences in theoretical orientation, the various

concepts of performance and creativity referred to in the literature are often used

interchangeably and have more that unites them than divides them (Sosniak, 2006, p. 288).

Within the creativity literature there appears to be “a parochial isolation…from psychology,

education, business, history…and other fields…The different fields tend…to use different

terms, however, and focus on different aspects of what seem…to be the same basic

phenomena” (Sternberg, 2007, p.100). For instance, the concept of ‘giftedness’ historically

integrates three dimensions; intelligence, motivation and creativity (although each has continued

to constitute a broad concept in itself) (Galton, 1869; Marland, 1972; Piirto, 1998; Dai, 2010).

Studies of ‘genius’ (which has a longer history than both performance and creativity), provides

the first indications of a linkage between the concepts of performance and creativity. According

to Eysenck (1995), the term genius is derived from the Latin word ‘ingenium’, meaning, natural

disposition or innate ability. Despite being briefly associated with the upper tail of the normal

distribution of intelligence quotients (Galton, 1869; Simonton, 2008), geniuses have been

recognised for their contribution to society, regardless of whether the basis for this lies in

outstanding mastery or creative contribution. Demonstrating this overlap between performance

and creativity, Simonton (2008) argues that:

Indeed, the creative genius is often viewed as the highest or purest manifestation of

both creativity and genius…the word genius ...first used for those persons who made

outstanding creative contributions...eventually became applicable to other forms of

exceptional achievement...This common denominator has permitted psychologists to

examine the similarities and contrasts in personality profiles of distinguished creators

(Simonton, 2008, p. 679-683).

The term ‘genius’ has therefore regarded performance and creative contribution as different

aspects of the same phenomena. Spearman (1923), Hargreaves (1927), Furneaux (1960), and

Newell, Shaw and Simon (1962) further illustrate this overlap by defining both intelligence and

creativity as the development of new knowledge.



In addition to the genius literature, Hatano and Inagaki (1986) have argued that misleading

distinctions between expertise and creativity should be avoided. Ericsson et al. (2006) also find

significant overlaps between the concepts within the expertise literature and suggest that

alternative concepts be used. Renzulli (2005) recommends examination of ‘creative productivity’

and Hatano and Inagaki (1986) believe that focus upon ‘adaptive expertise’ and ‘routine

expertise’ may be more useful than the performance/creativity distinction. Bransford, Brown

and Cocking (1999) argue that adaptive experts achieve a balance between efficiency and

innovation, whereas ‘routine experts’ optimise efficiency only. Similarly, Dai and Renzulli (2008)

recommend that attention should be drawn toward whether the individual is striving to build his

or her expertise for innovative or conventional purposes. According to Dai (2010):

People who prefer to master existing systems would likely follow a conventional path

to expertise...The more daring would radically depart from the tradition...In any person,

there exist two opposite forces, a force for experience producing and differentiating,

and a force for experience organizing and integrating (Dai 2010, p. 153).

Not only does the literature suggest that there is little distinction between the phenomena of

performance and creativity (for counter argument, see Gardner (1993) who distinguishes

between ‘maker’ and ‘master’), it is also argued that creative work is the highest expression of

human performance, and that such works transcend previous standards of performance

(Schumpeter, 1939; Kuhn, 1970; Capra, 1992; Barker, 1993; Ericsson, 1996; Utterback, 1996;

Christiensen, 1997; Hargadon, 2003; Sosniak, 2006). Regarding the first aspect of this

proposition, Sawyer (2007), states that studies of “genius, invention, talent and, of course

creativity...describe the highest levels of human performance” (Sawyer, 2007, p. 3). Similarly

Weisberg (2006) argues that:

Creative innovations are the highest levels of achievement in any domain because the

creative individual goes beyond the boundaries of the domain and redefines it...On this

analysis, the study of great creative achievements is continuous with the study of

expertise (Weisberg, 2006, p. 768).

Regarding the notion that creative works transcend previous standards of performance,

Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that creativity “goes beyond the application of available knowledge

in the domain at the time of completion” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p.6). Similarly Simonton (2008)

suggests that a creator is “a person whose effects on a domain are so numerous and so

distinctive that the domain is appreciably transformed” (Simonton, 2008, p.882).



Drawing together the relationship between expertise, performance, creativity and the

transformation of a domain, Feldman et al. (1994) suggest that creative work is the outgrowth of

domain mastery and the solving of problematic issues within the domain. Furthermore Feldman

et al. (1994) argue that:

The person who masters the knowledge contained in a domain… will be the source of

variations in the knowledge system of a domain...Transforming domains is a kind of

boundary pushing activity...Most examples of the transformations of a domain come

from those who have mastered its principles thoroughly, but who are dissatisfied with

one or another aspect of the domain as it exists (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 22).

Counter arguments to this view have been discussed by Kasof (1995), Collins (1998) and Runco

(2006). The social perspective on performance and creativity (and the associated consensual

definition) raises questions regarding the distinction between fame, celebrity and creativity and

mastery. The various arguments which have been examined in relation to this issue include;

processes of social attribution, social bias, politics, power and intergenerational networks of

influence, collective attention spans, impression management and changes in zeitgeist.

According to Glaveanu (2014), however, these critiques remain relevant only when a purely

contextual perspective of creativity is adopted. Viewed as a ‘distributed’ phenomenon,

performance and creativity are as much about biological and psychological processes as they are

the social and contextual processes associated with the evaluation of novelty and

appropriateness.

In addition to the general limitations associated with the current paradigm of PCP research,

Appendix 9 discusses a range of limitations which are specific to each of the nine streams of

research. These limitations include, but are not limited to; the absence of a general theory of

PCPer motivation, the failure to develop a comprehensive theory of group performance and

creativity, and a limited understanding of the dynamics which influence the development of

creative environments. Appendix 9, provides an overview of the general motivation and affect

literature. Notwithstanding the recognition within the PCP literature that motivation not only

plays a central role in PCP, but that a distinctive type of motivation is associated with PCP,

there have been no studies dedicated to the examination of this aspect of PCP. Moreover, as

outlined above, this gap in the research has also meant that there has been little investigation of

the ways in which Glaveanu’s (2013) notion of ‘affectivating environments’ may contribute

toward the development of positive affects and the role which these affects may play in the

development of PCPer motivation. Appendix 9 provides an overview of the characteristics



associated with creative environments and the process by which PCPer skills and abilities

become matched with the affordances offered by the environment.

Whilst Appendix 9 identifies several similarities regarding the dynamics of creative

environments (and the processes of change more generally) reported across a diverse range of

literatures, few studies have been dedicated toward understanding these dynamics in detail. In

many cases studies which adopt the socio-contextual perspective (rather than the ‘traditional’

endogenous perspective) have examined PCP using the notion of the ‘zeitgeist’ (Boring, 1971)

or via the use of historiometric techniques (Simonton, 1999). Many of these studies regard the

PCPer as the ‘figurehead’ of a broader movement such that the PCPer is:

the right person in the right place at the right time…a certain type of talent may have a

higher probability of accomplishment when the spirit of the times favours that

particular form, whereas another may have an advantage when the zeitgeist shifts to

another emphasis…a new discovery is seldom made until the times are ready for

it…there is no such thing as genius before its time…a highly creative idea or invention

may reflect genius but no one recognises it unless it is part of the zeitgeist (Runco,

2006, pp. 221-222).

Such studies are, however, often limited to the discussion of phenomena such as; highly creative

periods and locations, the emergence of parallel innovations, societal habituation, the desire for

novelty and cycles of creativity, anticipated discoveries, the comparison of peak creative age

across domains and time periods, the notion of preparation meets opportunity, and the

relationship between creativity and cultural change (Martindale, 1990; Simonton, 1999; Runco,

2006; Sawyer, 2006). Such studies have found that the “information-processing requirements for

each domain are unique; each domain has a characteristic ideation rate…and each domain has a

characteristic elaboration rate” (Sawyer, 2006, pp. 162-163). According to Feldman et al., (1994)

such considerations are reflected by the ‘domain’ and the ‘field’ in the DIFI framework.

Moreover, these researchers have identified that there are fluctuations in creativity “across

nations, cultures, and civilizations… historically creative individuals don’t appear randomly in

every year or decade; rather they’re clustered into periods of high creativity that are separated by

much longer periods of creative stagnation” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 166). Notwithstanding the value

of these insights, Feldman et al. (1994) and Amabile (1996) have argued that there is, not only a

need to better understand the dynamic and active role played by contextual factors, but there is

also a need to better understand the domain specific dynamics which may influence the

development of PCP (including the degree to which creativity may be more prevalent in certain



domains rather than others because the “zeitgeist favours certain domains at certain times”

(Runco, 2006, p. 225)).

The current paradigm of PCP research has enabled performance and creativity research to, not

only overcome many of the limitations associated with the ‘traditional’ paradigm, it has also

enabled PCP research to begin to examine the PCPer as a ‘person’ in an ‘environment’.

Notwithstanding this progress, the limitations described above show that the ‘current’ paradigm

does not, however, provide the means for researchers to adequately identify the pattern of

biological, psychological, sociological and contextual variables which produce PCP.

2.5 Future paradigm

2.5.1 Overview

The discussion above indicates that there is a need for an extension of the ‘current’ paradigm of

PCP research. As discussed below, such an extension may, however, need to be so significant,

that it may be regarded as a new paradigm of PCP research. Such a paradigm must extend PCP

beyond the ideology of individualism and reductionism. As discussed in greater detail in

Appendix 10, philosophically this requires going beyond ‘Idealism’, ‘Mechanicism’ (or

‘Organicism’), ‘Abstract Universals’ and the use of ‘Class-Generic’ concepts (Emery, 2000).

Perhaps just a fundamentally, the new ‘future’ paradigm of PCP research needs to transcend the

duality of modernity such that PCP is understood as the co-evolution of a ‘person’ and their

‘environment’ (whilst also retaining an understanding the characteristics of both), rather than

regarding PCP as being the purview of ‘great men’ or the inevitable outgrowth of the ‘zeitgeist’.

Such a paradigm will require a theoretical framework which embodies the notion of open

systems, and is capable of clearly defining variables, synthesising variables represented by

different disciplines in the literature (particularly variables relating to the large body of literature

outlined in Appendix 9), and a methodology which is capable of integrating qualitative and

quantitative research to trace patterns throughout the lives of PCPers. Such patterns will need to

be relatively simple and understandable, identify the key variables spanning biological,

psychological, sociological and contextual influences, the bi-directional or multi-directional

relationships between these variables and the ways in which they co-evolve over time. The new

paradigm should, therefore, capture the real life temporal, developmental and co-evolutionary

dimensions of PCP. Above all, the ‘future’ paradigm of PCP must provide the capacity for

testing hypotheses and explaining the emergence of PCP.



2.5.2 OST conceptualisation

Section 1.4 stated that this study aims to introduce a theoretical and methodological framework

which is capable of synthesizing the PCP literature and identifying if there is a bio-psycho-socio-

contextual pattern which produces PCP. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above describe the ‘traditional’ and

‘current’ paradigms of PCP research, and the ways in which these paradigms are limited in their

capacity to achieve the aims of the present study. Open Systems Theory (OST) (as described in

more detail in Appendix 10) provides a potentially fruitful yet overlooked framework which

offers many of the desirable features of the ‘future’ research paradigm.

From a theoretical and methodological perspective OST provides the means to operationalize

the perspective of ‘distributed creativity’. Conceptually Glaveanu (2014) transcends the duality

of individualism and contextualism (i.e. by arguing that there is an interdependence, interplay

and co-evolution of the PCPer and their environment). Open Systems Theory (OST), however,

enables researchers to go beyond the conceptualisation of ‘person-in-environment’ as the unit of

analysis, and establishes an integrated theoretical framework which enables researchers to clearly

define the person, the organisational structure, the environment, and the individual

characteristics of each of these components. Moreover, as outlined in Appendix 10, OST

provides a precise definition of the environment and its causal texture. According to Emery

(1999a) and Emery and Trist (1972), such a precise conceptualisation is required in order for

PCP research to move beyond the worldviews of ‘Mechanicism’ and ‘Organicism’ (Pepper,

1942), toward an appropriate application of ‘Contextualism’ and open systems thinking.

Furthermore, the OST conceptualisation of the environment (including the delineation between

task and extended social fields, the identification of different environmental types, and a theory

of environmental dynamics and change (Emery & Trist, 1972)) provides the means by which

concepts such as ‘field’ and ‘domain’ (Feldman et al., 1994), and ‘zeitgeist’ (Boring, 1971) (and

their dynamics), may be better understood. In addition, these features of OST provide a means

by which PCP research may be integrated with separate streams of research relating to

innovation (Utterback, 1996; Christensen, 1997; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2002; Hargadon, 2003),

cultural change (Toynbee & Somervell, 1963; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Schein, 1996), and

punctuated equilibria (Bak, 1999), such that individuals may be understood as co-evolving with

environments which are dynamic, and may be ripe for the emergence of PCP. Moreover, such a

conceptualisation, provides researchers with the ability to understand the specific dynamics

which may account for why certain environments are ripe for change and innovation, where

others are not.



Open Systems Theory also offers the means by which a comprehensive understanding of PCPer

motivation may be developed. By providing the theoretical and methodological means by which

the person-environment duality may be transcended, OST enables researchers to examine the

ways in which the co-evolution between the PCPer and their environment generates ‘affects’

(Tomkins, 1962; Emery, 1999a). Open Systems Theory, not only provides the conceptual tools

for understanding the ways in which the material and social aspects of the environment may

produce ‘affects’, it also provides the theoretical framework that is needed to understand the

ways in which ‘affects’ are influenced by different types of environment and organisational

structures, and the ways in which ‘affects’ relate to motivation. Importantly, as outlined in more

detail in Appendix 10, the OST conceptualisation of ‘Design Principles’ enables PCP researchers

to comprehensively examine group and organisational structure and functioning (including the

perspectives offered by Katzenbach and Smith (1992), Kotter and Heskett (1992), Salas et al.

(1992), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) and Sawyer (2006) regarding high performing and

creative groups and their group processes).

The ‘future’ paradigm of PCP, suggests a different understanding of concepts such as

intelligence, PCPer personality and creative processes. Appendix 10 describes how OST follows

a philosophical stream of knowledge called ‘Realism’, and that this stream of knowledge

proceeds on the basis of ‘Material Universals’, and utilises ‘serial-genetic’ concepts (meaning that

intelligence and personality are understood in terms of their functional effect). The starkest

example of the way in which OST reframes these concepts is outlined by the contrast between

creative processes as ‘autocentric’ (and reliant upon ‘learning by abstraction’) and creative

insights which arise from ‘allocentric’ perception (and the processes of ‘ecological learning’; see

Appendix 9). Section 5.7 discusses in further detail the limitations of this approach, including

the alternative views offered by the social constructivist perspective (Burr, 2003).

To move beyond the questions; ‘what is PCP?’, ‘where is PCP?’ and ‘where does PCP begin and

end?’ the ‘future’ paradigm of PCP research must answer the question: ‘what is the pattern

which produces PCP?’ Open Systems Theory provides the theoretical and methodological tools

necessary to operationalise Glaveanu’s (2014) conception of creativity as temporal,

developmental and co-evolutionary. Appendix 10 discusses the notion of a ‘serial-genetic’

pattern of PCP and contrasts this with the ‘class-generic’ patterns of performance and creativity

which have been associated with the ‘traditional’ and ‘current’ paradigms of research. Open

Systems Theory utilises methods such as ‘Causal Path Analysis’ and ‘Directive Correlation’

analysis to trace the ways in which the PCPer transacts with the environment throughout their

lifetime. The conceptualisation of a ‘serial-genetic’ PCP pattern, and the use of OST

methodological tools to understand such a pattern, not only provide the ability to understand

the unique characteristics of the PCPer and the unique characteristics of their environment, they



also provide the ability to understand what it is that PCPers actually do in their environment, the

effect that their actions have on that environment, and the precise ways in which their

environment influences them. In addition to providing a means by which the pattern of

relationships between variables can be identified, understood and tested, such an approach

provides what Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (1999a) have described as a

‘genotypical’ understanding of the PCP pattern. Such an understanding stands in stark contrast

to the ‘phenotypical’ understanding of such patterns which have emerged from the ‘traditional’

and ‘current’ paradigms of performance and creativity research. Moreover, the OST method of

pattern identification also introduces the possibility of being able to: (a) combine qualitative

methods (i.e. ‘Directive Correlation’ analysis) with quantitative methods (i.e. ‘Causal Path

Analysis’), and (b) examine PCP at multiple levels of detail (i.e. examination of the overall

pattern of PCP; a more detailed examination of specific temporal periods such as ‘early life’; or,

a more detailed examination of specific variables and processes such as the development of PCP

motivation).

Finally, the OST framework outlined in Appendix 10, provides the apparatus which is needed to

conduct an interdisciplinary study of PCP. Open Systems Theory offers a framework of

variables which span the disciplines of biology, psychology, sociology, technology and ecology.

Not only does OST specify the theoretical and empirical relationships between variables in each

of these disciplines, it also provides the means by which additional variables may be

incorporated. The interdisciplinary nature of the OST framework, therefore, not only provides

the capacity for organising and synthesising the nine fragmented and compartmentalised streams

of performance and creativity research outlined in Appendix 9, it also provides the means for

integrating research findings regarding the patterns producing PCP into a single integrated body

of literature, such that there is a systematic accrual of knowledge about PCP.

2.6 Summary

This chapter has provided a critical review of the PCP literature and developed a justification for

the approach taken in the present research study.

The literature review suggests that research into PCP has evolved in three broad phases. The

first phase (the ‘traditional paradigm’) spans a period which commenced in ancient times and

concluded in the 1980’s. During the earliest stages of this first phase, conceptions of PCP were

dominated by religious and romantic notions. Under the ‘traditional’ paradigm of PCP, the

scientific study of PCP was influenced by positivism, reductionism, theories of ‘natural selection’

and ‘psychoanalysis’, and subsequently theories such as ‘behaviourism’ and ‘associationism’. The



primary question of interest was ‘what is PCP? PCPers were regarded as ‘great men’ whom, by

virtue of heredity, possessed high levels of intelligence and a unique psychological make-up.

Peak Creative Performance was, therefore, conceptualised in terms of immalleable ‘endogenous’

factors (i.e. traits and abilities which were ‘inside’ these individuals). Notwithstanding the

substantial resources, time and effort devoted to the ‘traditional paradigm’, it suffered from

several limitations, and by the 1980’s a general consensus emerged within the literature that a

new approach was required. Not only did the ‘traditional’ paradigm fail to adequately explain the

emergence of real world examples of PCP, concerns were raised about its inability to account

for a broader range of influences which were thought to contribute to PCP, several difficulties

emerged regarding the definition of performance and creativity, there was concern regarding the

adequacy of the notion of ‘general intelligence’, difficulties arose regarding the paradoxical range

of PCPer personality traits, and researchers were unable to establish a causal link between

divergent thinking and PCP. Moreover, concerns were raised regarding the restricted range of

theoretical and methodological possibilities being advanced under the ‘traditional’ paradigm.

The second phase (the ‘current’ paradigm) sought to overcome the limitations of the ‘traditional’

paradigm by gaining an understanding of the broader range of influences which contributed to

PCP (particularly contextual influences). The primary research question shifted from ‘what is

PCP?, to ‘where is PCP? The emergence of the ‘current’ paradigm necessitated the development

of new theoretical and methodological approaches. Researchers adopted a ‘systems’ view of

PCP, and utilised multiple domain specific field based case studies in order to combine the

benefits of ‘idiosyncratic’ and ‘nomothetic’ research methods. During this period a wide variety

of ‘systems’ theories were used to understand the confluence of factors contributing to PCP.

The leading model of PCP which emerged under the ‘current’ paradigm is the ‘Domain-

Individual-Field-Interaction’ (DIFI) framework. The proponents of this model sought, not only

to establish a framework which offered broad direction for PCP research, but also provided

scope for future refinement.

Notwithstanding the advancements made by the ‘current’ paradigm, several limitations have also

emerged. A primary difficulty has arisen in relation to the sheer number of disciplines which

have become associated with PCP research. Consequently, the literature which has emerged is

large, fragmented and compartmentalised. This has not only led to the emergence of a wide

variety of definitions of performance and creativity, it has also created difficulties in integrating

the findings from differing disciplines (particularly in cases where there is a need to relate

qualitatively different variables to one another). Many of these limitation have, however, been at

least partially overcome by the introduction of a ‘consensual’ definition of PCP, the dual

criterion of novelty and appropriateness, and the development of several integrating typologies

of performance and creativity. Each of these advances have made it possible to conceptualise



the PCP literature as a single definable field of inquiry, however, further understanding of the

phenomenon of PCP remains constrained by other aspects of the ‘current’ paradigm.

No theoretical framework or methodology exists within the ‘current’ paradigm which is capable

of adequately integrating the various literatures. The ‘current’ paradigm does not adequately shift

away from an individualistic ideology. More specifically, there is a failure to adequately

conceptualise the interdependence of endogenous and contextual influences and the distributed

nature of PCP. Methodologically, the ‘current’ paradigm has difficulty in adequately integrating

qualitative and quantitative methods, in examining the temporal and material nature of PCP, and

in identifying a ‘pattern’ of PCP which traces the ways in which the PCPer co-evolves with their

environment such that the relationships between the various biological, psychological,

sociological and contextual influences can be understood in a simple and straightforward

manner.

The present research study is located in the third phase of PCP research (the ‘future’ paradigm).

This third phase overcomes the limitations of both ‘traditional’ and ‘current’ paradigms by

conceptualising PCP (and the pattern producing PCP) as a co-evolution of the person (including

an understanding of their unique characteristics) and their environment (and its unique

characteristics). It is suggested that the ‘future’ paradigm would utilise OST. Open Systems

Theory provides a theoretical framework and methodology which is capable of tracing the co-

evolutionary process described above, incorporating the various biological, psychological,

sociological, and contextual influences which contribute to PCP, synthesising the various PCP

literatures, and employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods which are

suitable for these purposes. It is argued that such an approach would be underpinned by a

different philosophical stream of knowledge, and because of this, the third phase would

constitute a new ‘future’ paradigm of PCP research. Moreover, it is argued that such a paradigm

shift would necessitate a refocusing of the ‘traditional’ and ‘current’ questions (i.e. ‘what is

PCP?’, ‘where is PCP?’, ‘when does PCP begin and end?’). The central question to be answered

by the ‘future’ paradigm of would instead be, ‘what is the pattern which produces PCP?

Chapter 3: Methodology



3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the methodology used in this research study. The

chapter commences with a discussion of the approach adopted in relation to ethics, validity and

reliability. The study is introduced as a primarily qualitative study of PCP (although quantitative

methods are used in a supporting role) and emphasis is placed upon the authenticity and

trustworthiness of interview data and the resulting analysis. The study is positioned as drawing

on the strengths of two different research traditions; the philosophy of realism (OST) and

interpretive research. An eclectic approach is therefore used to address the dual criteria of

validity and reliability. Particular consideration is given to the appropriate role of quantitative

analysis, and efforts are made to utilise this analysis as a means of summarising qualitative data,

shedding light on key issues and assisting with thematic analysis rather than conducting

statistical analysis or attempting to quantify qualitative data.

An outline of the development of variables, codes and scoring scales used in the study is

provided. The study utilises established OST variables as well as non OST variables to

adequately capture the range of biological, psychological, social and contextual variables

identified as relevant in the literature and on theoretical grounds. Benchmarks, variable

categorisation and variable scoring methods are discussed and it is argued that the framework of

variables used is not only appropriate to the research aims but also useful in extending

contemporary systems research into PCP.

The method of participant identification is outlined and the rationale for utilising a structured

theoretical sample frame (containing multiple, unambiguous and consensually defined cases and

types of PCP across a diverse range of domains, multiple types of PCP and comparison groups)

is discussed. It is also argued that statistical representativeness is not required or appropriate

when using a theoretical sampling approach in a study of PCP. The performance typology

provided identifies participants who represent ‘Performers’ and ‘Observers’, ‘Masters’ and

‘Makers’ and those whose performance and creativity reflect three types of work:

‘Performances’, ‘Products’ and ‘Paradigms’. Such a typology addresses several considerations

identified in the literature (accessibility, traditionally underutilised participant groups,

comparison groups and the examination of various types of PCP), and offers a means of

extending contemporary systems research into PCP.



Several challenges are identified within the literature in relation to the recruitment and selection

of PCPers. Methods of addressing these challenges are therefore discussed; including strategies

used to accommodate restrictions in participant availability, humanize the process of participant

recruitment, broaden the categories of participants and enhance the authenticity of participant

engagement.

The need to gather data using retrospective interviews in studies of PCP is discussed along with

the limitations associated with this method. Considerations such as time restrictions, the usage

of life case history interviews and the appropriateness of interview style are discussed. It is

argued that an approach which utilises embedded life case history interviews, maximum

participant choice (i.e. regarding participation as ‘Performer’ or ‘Observer’, interview location,

transcription methods and anonymity), a flexible conversational or non-directive style, and a

stance of open scepticism is an appropriate method of gathering authentic and valid data in this

research study.

The remainder of the chapter discusses the analysis of PCP interview data. The problematic

nature of PCP data analysis is discussed along with the examination of a potentially optimal

method and an overview of the way in which such a method is adapted and utilised within the

confines of this study. It is argued that studies of PCP should commence with a clear definition,

and to this end open coding and content analysis are used as an appropriate means of defining

PCP. Definitions of performance and creativity provided by participants are converted into

tabular form to identify the degree to which the concepts of performance and creativity are

regarded as similar, related or different. Patterns producing PCP are identified by using

structured case study analysis of ‘Performer’ interview data, causal path analysis of ‘Observer’

interview data and the structural corroboration of patterns identified by each method to yield a

general pattern of PCP. Prior to this analysis, the coding and scoring of both samples of

interview data were verified by independent experts. The analytical methods of structured case

study analysis, causal path analysis and structural corroboration were selected because of their

relevance to the research aim, established usage in OST research, contribution toward gaps

identified in the literature and the ways in which they extend contemporary studies of PCP.

3.2 Ethics clearance

Prior to commencement of this research study, ethics clearance was obtained from the

University of Western Sydney Human Research Ethics Panel. The ethics application was lodged

during November 2007 and approved during March 2008.



The ethical considerations discussed within the ethics clearance are addressed in the remaining

sections of this chapter. Maintaining respect for the privacy concerns of PCP participants is

identified as an important issue.

3.3 Validity and reliability considerations

There is general agreement that qualitative and quantitative research studies differ in their

research design, methodology and approach toward validity and reliability. Tests of authenticity,

trustworthiness, credibility and dependability are appropriate for conducting qualitative research,

whereas tests of validity and reliability are appropriate for quantitative research (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Silverman, 2001; Neuman, 2005; Schwartz-Shea &

Yanow, 2012; Creswell, 2013). According to Feldman et al. (1994), Silverman (2001) and Dai

(2010), the use of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches is often desirable,

particularly in relation to future PCP research. A mixture of tests for validity and reliability are

therefore appropriate in studies, such as this one where a combination of quantitative and

qualitative methods are used, but the primary focus is placed on qualitative analysis and

trustworthiness as the central criterion for assessing validity and reliability (Creswell, 2013).

This research study extends the qualitative studies conducted by contemporary systems

researchers such as Feldman et al. (1994), by using OST (Emery, 1999a) as a theoretical

framework, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify pattern(s)

producing PCP. Open Systems Theory (OST) represents but one of the many systems

perspectives outlined in Appendix 9, however as discussed in Chapter 2, it may be an

overlooked, yet potentially fruitful framework, for contemporary PCP research. Of particular

significance, is the potential for OST to address the research needs identified in Section 1.3 and

enable researchers to understand the interdisciplinary nature of the patterns which produce

PCP. The research study is therefore primarily guided by OST, the philosophy of realism and

the notion of material universals (outlined in Appendix 10) but recognises that perceptual and

communication processes affect the trustworthiness of data collected during interviews. The

study draws on the strengths of both traditions rather than being positioned as purely positivist

or interpretive. Open Systems Theory (Emery, 1999a) encourages clear identification and

specification of concepts and variables and structured analytical methods (both qualitative and

quantitative) to examine the degree to which such concepts are present or absent in the lives of

PCPers (and the ways in which this framework of concepts relate to one another), whilst the

interpretive approach of Feldman et al. (1994) encourages theoretical sampling, qualitative case

study analysis and the use of methods to build trust and respect with participants; thus

enhancing the authenticity of data being collected. The approach used in this study can



therefore described as primarily qualitative drawing on appropriate practices from both

positivist and interpretivist traditions. Silverman (2001) and Neuman (2005) clearly outline the

limitations of such an approach.

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), Silverman (2001) and Creswell (2013), research validity

and reliability (in both qualitative and quantitative research) are influenced by a wide array of

considerations including consistency between research aims and research question, philosophical

position, theoretical framework, concept definition and measurement, sampling approach, and

use of appropriate data collection and analytical methods.

The validity and reliability considerations relevant to this research study are addressed in at least

ten different ways. The research study utilises variables and measurement scales based on an

established theoretical framework (Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a), published benchmarks (such as

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994; 2000; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2009) as referenced within

Table 2) and mutually exclusive and collective exhaustive measurement categories (Creswell,

2013). Following the recommendations of Feldman et al. (1994), the study uses theoretical

sampling to align with the research aim of pattern identification and the usage of a primarily

qualitative methodology. The study uses the methods recommended by Feldman et al. (1994) to

enhance the authenticity of participant engagement and response. Validity and reliability

considerations in relation to data analysis are addressed by employing a research design which

maintains alignment between the research objective of pattern identification, the use of an open

systems theoretical framework (containing biological, psychological, social and contextual

variables among which patterns can be identified), and the usage of methods such as embedded

life case studies and causal path analysis (which are established analytical methods suitable for

pattern identification (Emery, 1976; Feldman et al., 1994)). The study also employs Glaser and

Strauss’s (1967) recommendation of maintaining transparent links between data, coding, and

concepts. Separate data files were developed for each interview (i.e. containing a voice

recording, a written transcription, a coding and scoring file and a theoretical file containing thick

description and write up of the interview). Regarding the second sample of participants (i.e. the

‘observer’ sample), transparency of data analysis is achieved in three ways: (a) by providing a

summary table of participant responses, (b) inclusion of a separate table outlining the source

correlation matrix, and reiterations of this matrix, and (c) the comparison of patterns between

‘performer’ and ‘observer’ samples.

Silverman (2001) and Creswell’s (2013) recommendations for independent verification of data

coding and scoring, and Schwartz-Shea and Yanow’s (2012) recommendation that the researcher

perspective be clearly articulated and that thick descriptions of the research context be provided

(i.e. situating the research and providing guidance regarding the generalisability of findings),



were also adopted. Considerations regarding the generalisability of findings were also addressed

by use of the OST postulation that insight into the universal (i.e. general patterns of PCP) may

be gained via the particular (i.e. in depth individual case study analysis).

The study primarily focuses on the identification of patterns of PCP emerging from the

examination of a small sample of ‘Performer’ embedded life case histories. Small sample size,

the use of theoretical sampling and structured case study analysis, mean that statistical analysis is

not appropriate for the identification of patterns in this study. Frequency counts and graphical

representation of case study data are therefore used to assist with thematic analysis. The use of

frequency counts and percentage responses within this study are not, therefore, an attempt to

quantify qualitative data (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). More appropriately, such counts and

percentages are viewed as tools which concisely and transparently summarise qualitative data

and shed light on key issues which are subsequently expanded on using thick descriptions. This

primary analysis is supported by a secondary sample of participants (i.e. ‘observers’, see Section

3.5) which, due to accessibility reasons (see Section 3.6), is comprised of a larger sample. As has

been argued by Emery (1976) and De Guerre et al., (2008), the statistical technique of causal

path analysis is an appropriate and useful method for analysing data from such a sample. Causal

path analysis is an established method for analysing systemic patterns in OST studies. Whilst the

technique utilises successive iterations of correlation analysis and standard quantitative tests for

significance, Emery (1976) and De Guerre et al. (2008) argue that the analysis should not

represent a complex statistical analysis, but rather be presented in graphical terms and provide a

simple roadmap depicting the strength of association between variables. Within the context of

this research study, the causal path diagram should not be viewed as an attempt to quantify

qualitative data, but rather as a useful and appropriate way to summarise the patterns an

relationships between variables and therefore a useful means by which patterns of relationships

identified within the primary case study analysis can be corroborated and compared.

3.4 Development of variables and codes

In accordance with OST and the research agenda foreshadowed in Section 1.5.7, variables must

be selected based on their relevance to the research topic. Open Systems Theory concepts

should be used flexibly, additional non OST concepts are to be clearly defined (in functional

terms) and measurement categories should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

Feldman et al. (1994) and Dacey and Lennon (1998) also recommend that any systemic study of

PCP requires the establishment of a range of variables which are reflective of biological,

psychological, social and contextual influences.



Table 2 provides an overview of the variables used in this research study. A more detailed

breakdown of the specific variables used in each category is provided in Appendix 3. The table

distinguishes between OST concepts and additional non OST variables (in italics) which were

selected for their relevance to the research question. Non OST variables were included to

adequately capture the breadth of bio-psycho-social and contextual influences identified within

the research literature (see Chapter 2). As discussed in more detail in Sections 3.7 and 3.8

modifications were made to the optimal methodology outlined in Appendix 10 regarding the use

of contextual variables. It is envisaged that the resulting framework of variables will also

contribute to the aim of organising, integrating and synthesising findings such an eclectic

literature. Following the OST requirement that there be clear specification regarding the person

and the organisation (i.e. together comprising the system), the first thirteen variables within

Table 2 pertain to the person and the remaining sixteen relate to the organisation. Equally

importantly, Table 2 lists references upon which functional definitions (another key requirement

of OST) and measurement scales for each variable were based. Each of the variables contained

in Table 2 have been verified by an expert in OST (Merrelyn Emery, cofounder of OST).

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES

Variable Rationale Scale Used

Socio-economic status

(SES) of family of

origin

Scoring provides the full set in vernacular

terms, e.g. average (a)(b). Self-report

unless otherwise indicated

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Number of interests Most people (average) have between 2

and 3 interests (c)

Score 1 if one interest only. Score

3 if more than 3

Number of life goals Most people (average) have between 2

and 3 goals (c)

Score 1 if one goal only. Score 3 if

more than 3

Breadth of skills: for all

skills and talents

Estimate of the average is provided by

the researcher. Scores are checked by an

expert in relevant field.

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Expertise: for all skills and

talents

Estimate of average is provided by the

researcher. Scores are checked by an

expert in the relevant field.

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Distinctively competent = 4

Levels of functioning &

ideals pursued

Necessary only to establish

presence or absence. Scoring

follows the definition in the

literature (Emery, 1999a).

Absent = 1

Present = 4



Motivation

Motivation varies widely but the average

is described as ‘just motivated’ or

‘engaged’. Estimates follow data sets

(d)(e)(f) for motivation and engagement.

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Dedicated = 4

Obsessed/Compelled = 5

Type of knowing





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Behavioural

preferences

Scales are obtained from

references (g)(h). Scales ranging

from 1-5 provide adequate

differentiation (Emery, 1999b).

Extreme Subjectivizing or

Internalizing = 1

Near Subjectivizing or

Internalizing pole = 2

Mid-scale = 3

Near Objectivizing or

Externalizing pole = 4

Extreme Objectivizing or

Externalizing = 5.

Mode of learning





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Mode of discovery





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Positive and negative

affects

Below, average and above average

provides adequate differentiation

for estimate. Estimates are taken

from data sets (e)(f) for frequency

of affects experienced.

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Health

Below, average and above average gives

adequate differentiation for estimate.

Estimates are taken from data sets for

physical and mental health and relation

to affects (e)(f).

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Socio-economic status Scoring provides the full set in vernacular Below average = 1



(SES) [organisation] terms, e.g. average (i). Self-report unless

otherwise indicated.

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Technology

[organisation]

Estimate of average provided by the



Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Skills [organisation]

Estimate of average is provided by the



Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Distinctively competent = 4

Location of

instrumentality





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Intrinsic motivators:

Pertaining to the person

Scales ranging from 1-3 provide

adequate differentiation for

estimate (g)(h). Scoring follows the

definition in the literature (Emery,

1999a).

Elbow room, variety and

learning are scored:

Too little = 1

Too much = 2

Optimal = 3

Mutual support,

meaningfulness and

desirable future are scored:

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Intrinsic motivators: In

the climate of the

organization

Scales ranging from 1-3 provide

adequate differentiation for

estimate (g)(h).

Elbow room, variety and

learning are scored:

Too little = 1

Too much = 2

Optimal = 3

Mutual support,

meaningfulness and

desirable future are scored:

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3



Extrinsic motivators

Estimate of average provided by the



Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above Average = 3

Variety

Variety enhancing and variety

reducing are scored separately.

Scoring follows the definition in

the literature (Emery, 1999a).

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Type of

communication

Peer-task and asymmetrical-formal

communication are scored

separately. Scoring follows the

definition in the literature (Emery,

1999a).

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Group dynamics




literature (Emery, 1999a)

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Design principles


presence or absence Scoring


literature (Emery, 1999a). DP1 is

scored as ‘absent’ if the participant

has experienced DP1, its effects,

and has rejected it. DP2 is scored

present if the participant has

attempted to produce the structure

even if it is not technically a DP2

structure.

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Means of

learning/changing

Scoring follows the definition in

the literature (Emery, 1999a).

Opinion leader= 1

Both Opinion leader and

Peer group = 2

Peer group= 3

Conditions for effective

communication





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Planning Necessary only to establish


Absent = 1

Present = 4





Strategies





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Means of adaptation





Absent = 1

Present = 4

Active adaptation and

maladaptions





Absent = 1

Present = 4

(a) Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994).

(b) For particular occupations such as Farm Manager; Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006,

2009). For income etcetera, Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006).

(c) Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006) documents statistics in areas of culture & leisure;

attending sports; participation in sport.

(d) Ayers, K. E. (2006) contains statistics of motivation and engagement in work.

(e) de Guerre, D. W., Emery, M., Aughton, P., & Trull, A. S. (2008) contains statistics of

motivation & engagement in work. The database from which these findings are drawn also

contains statistical details of the distribution of affects, physical & mental health, from standard

questions, and their interrelationships.

(f) Emery, M. (2010) contains statistics of motivation & engagement in work. The database

from which these findings are drawn also contains statistical details of the distribution of

affects, physical & mental health, from standard questions, and their interrelationships.

(g) Emery, F. E., & Emery, M. (1980) contains statistics for the behavioural preferences/

personality test.

(h) Emery, M. (1999b) contains statistics for the behavioural preferences/ personality test.

(i) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000).

Appendix 6 contains a modified coding and scoring matrix used for the larger ‘Observer’

sample. For this participant group, additional codes were added to categorise data which did not

fit within the predefined framework of codes and concepts outlined above. These additional

codes are displayed at the end of the summary table in Appendix 6 (under the heading additional

variables).



3.5 Sample frame- participant identification

PCP participant identification requires the identification of ‘unambiguous cases’ (Coleman &

Cross, 2005; Runco, 2006; Threlfall & Hargreaves, 2008). According to Roe (1952),

unambiguous cases are essential because, “if there were particular factors in the lives or

personalities of men which were related to their choice of vocation, these factors should

appear...most clearly in the men who had been most successful at the vocation” (Roe, 1952, p.

21). Similarly, Sosniak (2006) argues that the study of unambiguous cases enable us to

“concentrate on the ultimate expression of expertise…this allows us to study expertise most

clearly” (Sosniak, 2006, p. 300).

There are several approaches which can be used to identify an unambiguous case of PCP (Roe,

1952; Bloom, 1958; Getzels & Csikzentmihalyi, 1976; Zuckerman, 1977; Bloom, 1985; Wallace

& Gruber, 1989; Feldman et al., 1994; Chi, 2006; Ericsson et al., 2006). As outlined in Section

2.4 however, there is a general consensus that the preferred contemporary method for the

identification of unambiguous cases is the ‘consensual method’ (Feldman et al., 1994; Amabile,

1996; Runco, 2006). Accordingly, Ericsson et al. (2006) have argued that “there is a long

tradition of influential studies with interviews of peer nominated eminent scientists… and

analyses of biographical data on Nobel prize winners” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 12). Further

supporting this position, Sosniak (2006) has also stated that; “generally...examining extreme

cases as defined normatively by people who should be qualified to make such distinctions is

widely accepted as a reasonable strategy, at least for certain domains of expertise where other

measures of competence might not be available” (Sosniak, 2006, p. 293).

Limitations associated with the consensual method however include evidence that “when

individuals based on their extensive experience and reputation, are nominated by their peers as

experts, their actual performance is occasionally found to be unexceptional” (Ericsson et al.,

2006, p. 686), and that “consensual judgements of expertise should be avoided, because they can

be influenced by a variety of characteristics other than true competence, such as popularity or

reputation” (Salthouse, 1991, p. 287).

It is preferable to identify several unambiguous cases as opposed to the use of a single case

study (Bloom, 1985; Feldman et al., 1994; Csikzentmihalyi, 1997). For instance, according to

Sosniak (2006):

Data from a set of expert performers, rather than focusing on individuals, also was

considered important to the design...by studying a group rather than an individual,



researchers can harvest what is essential for the development of expertise and leave

behind that which is idiosyncratic (Sosniak, 2006, p. 293).

In addition, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) argues that the multicase approach should include

participants from a wide diversity of cultural backgrounds. Bloom (1952) and Sosniak (2006)

also suggest that identified participants should span several domains of activity. In Sosniak’s

(2006) view:

Working with a coherent sample and then trying to collect supplementary and

collaborative information…seem to be important methodological considerations.

Similarly, the care taken in describing and analysing data within cases and across

cases...will distinguish studies that will hold up, or at least continue to be useful over

time…for a great many reasons, then, it seems important that we conduct studies of the

long term development of expertise across a greater range of conditions and cultures, it

seems important, also, that we conduct studies across a greater range of domains

(Sosniak, 2006, pp. 296-299).

The methodology used to identify participants in this study, builds on the recommendations

outlined above as well as those outlined in Section 2.4.8 (i.e. that identified participants

represent various dimensions of PCP). A ‘performance typology’ was developed (Table 3 below)

as the basis for the theoretical sampling of PCPers. Table 3 is populated with individuals who,

using the consensual definition of PCP, represent each of the cells within the typology and

therefore formed the theoretical from which participants were contacted. In contrast to the

statistical representativeness demanded by traditional quantitative studies, the process of

theoretical sampling used in this study, was designed to identify participants on the basis of

relevance to the research question (Feldman et al., 1994; Silverman, 2001). When utilising

theoretical sampling, there is therefore, no requirement for minimum or equal sample sizes of

participants within each category of the sample frame.

Participants were drawn from two populations, ‘Performers’ and ‘Observers’. ‘Performers’ are

individuals who are, by ‘consensual definition’ (Amabile, 1996), identified as unambiguous cases

of PCP. Following the recommendations of Csikszentmihalyi (1997), individuals were included

in the ‘Performer’ category when publically available records (including; newspaper articles,

internet publications, domain journals and documentary reports) indicated consensus among

recognised domain commentators regarding the achievements of the potential participant.



‘Observers’ are those individuals who are publically recognised as providing advice and support

to individuals who are defined as ‘Performers’. Individuals were included in the ‘Observer’

category using the same identification method as was used for ‘Performers’. Identification of

participants in both ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ categories provides the first step toward the

inclusion of multiple cases. The inclusion of ‘Observer’ participants offers at least three

advantages. ‘Observers’ offer a way to address the bias associated with retrospective accounts of

achievement given by PCPers (Silverman, 2001). This group of participants provide access to

data from a relatively underutilised but valuable source (Ericsson et al., 2006). ‘Observers’ also

assist researchers in overcoming many of the difficulties associated with access, confidentiality

and potentially low sample size which arise when dealing with a sample limited to PCPers

(Csikzentmihalyi, 1997).

Table 3 contains two additional features which enhance the capacity of a research study to

identify multiple participants, particularly those representing diverse types and domains of PCP.

Table 3 incorporates three types of creative performance (Performance, Product, Paradigm) as

identified by Gardner (1993) and Runco (2006). In addition, Table 3 includes Gardner’s (1997)

‘Master’, ‘Maker’ classification. Gardner (1997) defines a ‘Master’ as “an individual who gains

complete mastery over one or more domains of accomplishment; his or her innovation occurs

within established practice” (Gardner, 1997, p. 11). In contrast, a ‘Maker’ is an individual who

“may have mastered existing domains, but he or she devotes energies to the creation of a new

domain” (Gardner, 1997, p. 12). The categories ‘Performance’, ‘Product’ and ‘Paradigm’

distinguish between three types of ‘Master’ or ‘Makers’. The first category of creative

performance (Performance) refers to participants whose mastery or making is displayed in a

variety of ways including:

The performance of a ritualised work…and the creativity inheres chiefly in the

particular characteristics of the specific performance…to perform in a distinctive and

valued way…in artforms where notations do not exist…the performance is the

work…in the fifth variety, an individual actually carries out a series of actions in

public…in contrast to ritualised artistic performances…it is not possible to work out

the details of the performance in advance (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 77).

The ‘Master’ or ‘Maker’ is classified as producing a ‘Product’ if they have created a “frozen

work…some kind of work in a symbolic system. That work can then be examined, performed,

exhibited, evaluated by others who are knowledgeable in the domain” (Feldman et al., 1994, p.

77). The participant may also be classified as being the ‘Master’ or ‘Maker’ of a ‘Paradigm’.

Usage of the term paradigm follows Kuhn’s (1970) definition. The ‘maker’ of a paradigm is also

described by Feldman et al. (1994) as developing “the solution to a well defined problem…the



devising of an encompassing theory…the scholar not only reconfigures existing data and

concepts but points the way to future lines” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 77).

Potential participants were allocated to one of the twelve possible categories in accordance with

the protocols established by Gardner (1993) and Feldman et al. (1994) (i.e. by conducting a

review of public records regarding the achievements of each potential participant and then

categorising potential participants in accordance with the definitions outlined above). According

to Gardner (1993), such a method is a valid approach for the identification of a theoretical

sample of participants. It should be noted however, that Section 2.4.8 identified several

definitional difficulties associated with the concepts of performance and creativity and, in

addition, Gardner (1993), Feldman et al. (1994), and Csikszentmihalyi (1997) have discussed the

dynamic nature of performance and creativity, including the conundrum that an individual who

may not be regarded a PCPer at one point in time, may be recognised as such at another. Whilst

such difficulties are acknowledged, it was envisaged that the more refined categorisation

contained within Table 3 offers a fruitful theoretical sampling approach.

Usage of the ‘consensual definition’ in conjunction with the typology outlined in Table 3 offers

a methodology for structuring and extending existing PCP sampling methods. Moreover, it is

expected that the theoretical sample identified by Table 3 is effective in terms of its power for

explaining the work of PCPers (Gardner, 1993). Furthermore, it is suggested that Gardner’s

(1993) recommendations should be adopted when considering the limitations associated the use

of Table 3. According to Gardner (1993):

The decision to deal with a manageable number of domains meant that many areas had

to go unsampled…I hope that readers can focus on the insights gained from the

present analysis and, if so motivated, extend this study to other individuals, other

domains, or other populations…many will point to individuals whom they consider to

be at least as creative as the members of the cohort I selected…I did not insist on the

notion of acceptance by the field…I know of no other criterion that is reliable in the

long run (Gardner, 1993, pp. 388-389).

Application of this methodology yielded a typology containing over one hundred potential

participants. The final iteration of the typology (i.e. the theoretical sampling frame from which

participants in this study were selected) is contained in Table 3 below. This final iteration refined

the sample of potential participants after consideration was given to issues such as accessibility,

researcher interest (see Gardner, 1993) and anticipated response rates (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).

While desirable for validity purposes (from the traditional positivist perspective), the

identification of control or comparison groups is difficult to employ when examining PCP. For



instance, Sosniak (2006, p. 295) argues that it is not only difficult to identify an appropriate

comparison group, but also asks:

What difference does it make if we have no comparison group at all?…a random

sample control group makes no sense for a purposefully chosen elite study group, as

the possibility of a matched sample on certain key criteria gets weighed down with the

question of what to match for a long term experience (Sosniak, 2006, p. 295).

Studies of PCP have adopted various approaches to address the challenge of

control/comparison groups. Roe (1952) utilised subsidiary studies, Csikzentmihalyi (1997),

Zuckerman (1977) and Gardner (1993) did not use any comparison groups, and Bloom (1958,

1985) favoured the comparison of experts in one domain with experts in another domain.

According to Sosniak (2006):

The Bloom studies involved six groups of talented individuals: each group would have

its own story, pairs of fields should be related by many common considerations, and all

six groups might share at least some significant elements of the development of

talent...or so it was hoped (Sosniak, 2006, p. 295).

In view of the research gaps outlined in the PCP literature (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006;

Dai, 2010), and the difficulties related to the use of control groups (Sosniak, 2006), it was felt

that the objectives of this study would best be achieved via the use of the ‘Performer/Observer’

methodology rather than a ‘control group’ methodology.

TABLE 3: THEORETICAL SAMPLE

Master Maker

Performance

Andrew Johns (Rugby League)P

Kostya Tzu (Boxing)P

Ian Thorpe (Swimming)P

Patrick Rafter (Tennis)P

Cate Blanchet (Actor)P

Cody Crocker (Rally Driving)P

Bruce Mathiske (Guitar)P

John Foreman (Musician)P/O

David Williamson (Playwright)P

Harry M Miller (Entrepreneur)P

John Buchanan (Sport)O

Phil Gould (Sport)O

Istvan Gorgenyi (Sport)O

Peter Spence (Sport)O

Paul Mac (Music)P

Angus Young (Music)P

Peter Sculthorpe (Music)P



Guy Strazzollo (Jazz Musician)P

Wayne Gardner (Motorbike

Racing)P

Casey Stoner(Motorbike racing)P

Tommy Emmanuel (Musician)P

Martin St James (Performer-

Hypnotist)P

David Collins (Comedian)P

Marsha Hines (Singer)P/O

Jimmy Barnes (Singer)P

Rob Sitch (Comedian)P/O

Alan Thompson (Sport)O

Gordian Fulde (Medical)P/O

Brigadier Jim Wallace

(Military)P/O

Major General Duncan Lewis

(Military)P/O

Brigadier Mike Hindmarsh

(Military)P/O

Greg Mullins (Emergency

Response)P/O

Diedre Anderson (Sport)O

Wayne Pearce (Sport)P/O

Patsy Tremayne (Sport)O

Phil Jauncey (Sport)O

John Eales (Sport)P/O

Wayne Bennett (Sport)P/O

Kevin Sheedy (Sport)P/O

Karie Webb (Sport)P

Lane Beachley (Sport)P/O

Russell Brice (Sport)P

Greg Norman (Sport)P

Andrew Gaze (Sport)P

Bob Carr (Politics)P

Mark Richards (Sport)P

Tom Caroll (Sport)P

Kylie Minogue (Music)P



Sir Charles Mackerras (Music)P

Thomas Keneally (Writer)P

Lauren Jackson (Sport)P

Steven Heathcote (Dance)P

Graeme Murphy (Dance)P

Dr Richard Charlesworth (Sport)O

Product

Prof David J David (Surgeon)P/O

Brad Clark (Luthier)P/O

Andy Bell (Luthier)P

Neil Perry (Chef)P/O

Paul Bassatt (CEO)P/O

James Strong (ex CEO

Qantas)P/O

Vince Frost (Designer)P/O

Glenn Murcutt (Architect)P

David Parken (Architect)P/O

Peter Morrissey (Fashion

Designer)P

Akira Isogowa (Fashion

Designer)P

Reg Mombassa (Artist)P

Roger Corbett (Ex CEO)P/O

Simon Marriott (CEO)P/O

John De Margheriti (Game

Developer)P/O

Jane Allen (Business)O

Les Murray (Poet)P

Bruce Petty (Cartoonist)P

Zareh Nalbandion (CEO

Animation)P/O

George Miller (Film Producer)P/O

Mike Simcoe (Car Designer)P

Dr Geoff Garrett (CEO)P/O

John Ilhan (Entrepreneur)P/O

Graham Turner (Entrepreneur)P/O

John Symond (Entrepreneur)P/O

Prof William S Price (Academic)P

Prof Ashley Craig (Inventor)P

Jim Haseloff (Inventor)P

Ralph Saarich (Inventor)P/O

John Mcgrath (Entrepreneur)P/O

Gerry Harvey (Entrepreneur)P/O

Kevin Panozza (Entrepreneur)P/O

Dick Smith (Entrepreneur)P/O

Julie Porter (Business)O

Peter Irvine (Business)P/O

Katherine Woodthorpe

(Entrepreneur)O

Mary O’Kane (Business)O

Terry Cutler (Business)O

Geoff Morgan (Business)P/O

Reg Mombassa (Artist/Musician)P

Jim Haseloff (Inventor)P

Bill Mollison (Inventor)P

Paul Bassatt (Business)P/O

Prof Graeme Clarke (Inventor)P

Dr Fiona Wood (Inventor)P



Paradigm Frank Lowy (Business)P/O

Michael Martin (Sports

Psychologist)O

Jeff Bond (Sports Psychologist)O

Patsie Tremayne (Sports

Psychologist)O

Paul Clitheroe (Financial expert)P

Noel Whittaker (Financial

expert)P

Joe Hachem (Poker champion)P

Nick Greiner (Politics)P/O

Dr Fiona Stanley (Medicine)P

Merrelyn Emery (Social

Researcher)P/O

Phil Butt (Business)P/O

Tim Flannery (Environmentalist)P

Margaret Jackson (Chairperson)P/O

Julie Ross (Entrepreneur)P/O

Gale Kelly (CEO)P/O

Paul Keating (Politics)P/O

Bob Hawke (Politics)P/O

John Howard (Politics)P/O

David Bassau (Philanthropist)P

Natasha Stott Despoja (Politics)P/O

Don Chipp (Politics)P/O

Peter Sheehan (Generation Y)P

Anthony Grant (Coaching

Psychology)P

Rusty Miller (Surfing culture)P

Peter Doherty (Veterinary Science)P

Sir Gustav Nossal (Immunology)P

Details of the sample successfully recruited from Table 3 are outlined in Section 3.6 below.

3.6 Participant recruitment

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) provides recommendations regarding PCP participant recruitment and

data gathering which extends beyond that what is recognised as normal ethically appropriate

research behaviour as described by Silverman (2001) and Neuman (2005). Csikszentmihalyi

(1997) indicates that PCPers are a population with many priorities, substantial time constraints

and significant expertise. Consequently, they will devote time toward research which they

perceive as valuable, interests them, accommodates their privacy and offers an engaging

dialogue from which they gain value. PCPers are therefore more likely to participate fully

(enhancing research authenticity and trustworthiness) in a conversational interview than, for

instance, in a highly structured questionnaire where the researcher adopts a strongly positivist

orientation. This research study developed Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) recommendations into four

strategies designed to enhance participation. All contact was made through appropriate

intermediaries in order to demonstrate respect for PCP privacy. Information sheets were

provided outlining the mutual benefits of the research. Importantly, the standardised



information template was customised so as to appeal to the interests of each potential

participant. A highly flexible, respectful and informal approach was used when arranging

interviews and a conversational interview style (designed around the principles of mutual

benefit, participant choice and confidentiality) was used for data gathering. According to

Csikszentmihalyi (1997), Silverman (2001), humanising the process of participant recruitment

and data gathering (see Section 3.6) in this way, enhances accessibility, authenticity and validity.

Contact details for intermediaries were obtained from publically available resources and initial

contact was made by phoning the appropriate intermediary (manager, agent, personal assistant,

or customer service line) for the purpose of requesting guidance as to the most appropriate way

to make contact with the participant. Recognising that both potential participants and

intermediaries are time poor, the researcher offered to follow up the initial contact on three

separate occasions during the course of a one month period. In addition, the researcher

provided intermediaries a commitment that if a response was not received by the third occasion,

attempts to make contact would cease and the research process would be terminated.

Appendix 1 and 2 provide an outline of the information sheet and consent forms which were

provided to participants. Prior to making contact and distributing information sheets to

participants, efforts were made to conduct background research about each participant, their

achievements and their interests (using public records such as internet, newspaper, other

published articles). In the covering email which contained information sheets and consent

forms, the researcher attempted to connect with the participant on a personal level by providing

a brief description of the ways in which the research described in the information sheet may be

of interest and benefit to the participant given his or her particular circumstances.

A flexible and informal approach was used to arrange interviews. Participants were advised that

interviews could be conducted at any time or location, and that the duration and interview

format could be modified to suit the requirements of the individual participant. As a default

position, participants were advised that interviews would typically be 45 minutes duration. It was

anticipated that this brief, engaging and flexible format would increase the probability of

participation.

Application of the above procedure resulted in a total of one hundred and four individuals being

contacted, and acceptance by thirty two participants (seven Performers and twenty five

Observers): an acceptance rate of approximately 30%.



3.7 Data Gathering

Section 1.5.7 proposed a potentially optimal method for gathering data in studies of PCP. The

proposed method comprised: (a) detailed ‘life case history’ interviews, including interviews with

PCPers, family members, teachers, colleagues and advisors (Sommerhoff, 1974; Bloom, 1985;

Csikzentmihalyi, 1997; Silverman, 2001), (b) detailed discussion of the characteristics of the

system and the PCPers environment (Emery, 1999a), (c) the use of psychological and ability

testing (Cronbach, 1990), (d) collection of longitudinal data (Terman & Oden, 1959), and (e)

collection of objective measures of moderator variables such as socioeconomic status

(Berenson, Krehbiel & Levine, 2008). As discussed in Section 3.6, however, Csikszentmihalyi

(1997) argues that such a methodology may be difficult to implement and inappropriate for use

with PCPers. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1997), PCP data gathering should be conducted

using a ‘non directive’ and ‘humanised’ approach (i.e. restricted in scope so as to avoid

intrusiveness and resembling a normal two-way conversation).

The benefits and limitations regarding the usage of retrospective interviews in PCP research

have been examined by Csikzentmihalyi (1997), Silverman (2001) and Sawyer (2006). Wallace

and Gruber (1989), Csikszentmihalyi (1997) and Ericsson et al. (2006) subsequently argue that

retrospective interviews are both desirable and necessary for conducting PCP research.

According to Sosniak (2006):

Retrospective interview studies represent an imperfect but necessary method of

investigation for this field. These studies allow us to investigate questions about

expertise that cannot be explored with other methods...Studies concerned with the

development of exceptional talent over time have little choice but to make use of

retrospective interviews...Even studies of prodigies (Feldman 1986; Goldsmith

2000)...have supported the general proposition that we do not yet have the appropriate

markers to know whom to follow longitudinally...The question, then, is not whether we

need to use the method of retrospective interview in the study of expertise, but rather,

how best to use the method Sosniak (2006, p, 292).

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) does, however, recommend employing a stance of ‘open scepticism’

when conducting retrospective interviews with PCPers.



In this study, several modifications were made to the potentially optimal method outlined above.

These modifications were introduced to account for the time, and other constraints relating to

participant availability and confidentiality. The ‘life case history’ approach (Wallace & Gruber,

1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) was replaced by the use of an ‘embedded case study’ approach

(Silverman, 2001). The embedded case study is less invasive and time consuming and focuses on

specific interview topics rather than on a detailed chronological review of the participant’s life

history. Consequently, no longitudinal data was captured and no family members or teacher

interviews were conducted in this study.

The method adopted for gathering data within this study inevitably places restrictions on the

form of data analysis which can be performed, particularly in relation to environmental

influences upon PCP. Interview data was therefore supplemented by additional information

available from the public record about the lives of PCPers. In addition, following

Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) recommendation to avoid the use of psychological or ability testing,

discussions were held with participants regarding the OST concept of behavioural preference

(detailed in Appendix 10). In no way does the discussion of behavioural preference act as a

proxy for the psychological testing of participants. The use behavioural preference as a variable

does, however, provide a means of examining personality which is consistent with the

theoretical framework being utilised and was therefore appropriate for use in this study.

According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), Silverman (2001) and Neuman (2005), researchers

should obtain ‘thick descriptions’ regardless of whether the full life case history method or the

embedded case method is used. In order to guide data collection, ensure that each research

question is covered comprehensively, and that thick descriptions are obtained, Csikszentmihalyi

(1997) recommends the use of a flexible, non-intrusive interview checklist. Additional data

collection requirements are however imposed if a bio-psycho-social (Engel, 1977; Dacey &

Lennon, 1998) or ‘Open Systems’ framework (Emery, 1999a) is utilised. Table 4 provides an

overview of the checklist that was used to collect interview data in this research study. Table 4

incorporates the non OST bio-psycho-social variables and established OST variables outlined in

Table 2 (as further explained and defined in Appendices 3 and 10) and was used in the flexible,

non-intrusive manner suggested by Csikszentmihalyi (1997). As outlined in Appendix 10, OST

makes the distinction between system (person and organisation) and environment at the

commencement of each research study. The left hand column of Table 4 defines the system (i.e.

the person and the organisation) and the environment and the right hand column lists the

variables associated with the person, organisation and environment. This allowed the research to

ensure that interviews had captured each of the variables of interest whilst maintaining a non-

directive conversational style to each interview.



TABLE 4: DATA COLLECTION CHECKLIST

OST Category Variable

Person

Bio

log

ical

Breadth of skills: innate

Expertise: innate

Positive and negative affects: innate

Health: innate

Psy

cho

log

ical

Number of life goals

Motivation

Behavioural preferences

Levels of functioning & ideals pursued

Learning

Positive and negative affects

Health

Type of knowing

Mode of discovery

Organisation

So

cial


Breadth of skills: learned

Expertise: learned

Technology [system]

Skills [system]

Location of instrumentality

Intrinsic motivators: Pertaining to the

person

Intrinsic motivators: In the climate of

the organization


Variety

Type of communication



Group dynamics

Design principles

Means of learning/changing

Conditions for effective

communication

Planning

Strategies

Means of adaption

Active adaption and maladaptions

Environment

So

cia

l/C

ult

ura

l/ E

co

no

mic

Type I: Randomised

Type II: Clustered

Type III: Disturbed-Reactive

Type IV: Turbulent

Type V: Vortical

Implementation of the recommendations and modifications outlined above resulted in the

following interview procedure. Four topics were addressed at the commencement of each

interview: (a) rapport and mutual benefit, (b) the research question and interview format, (c)

participant choice as ‘Performer’ or ‘Observer’ and, (d) participant confidentiality and anonymity

Background information about each participant was used to engage the participant in a

discussion about the mutual benefits of the research. The background and motivation behind

the research study was also discussed. Participants were then re-acquainted with the research

topic using a ‘Participant Preparation Sheet’ (see Table 5 below). The researcher discussed this

sheet with participants, answered any questions raised, and a determination was made by

participants regarding their ‘Performer’ (i.e. discussing their own achievements and the events

occurring in their own life) or ‘Observer’ (i.e. discussing their observations of the achievements

of others) status. Whilst the sample frame (Table 3) pre-establishes the degree to which potential

participants are regarded as ‘Performers’ or ‘Observers’, the sample frame also includes a large

proportion of participants who identified as both ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’, and in these cases

choice of perspective was available to participants.



In order to balance participant involvement with provision of adequate interview structure, the

researcher then suggested that the interview begin with a discussion of the relationship between

performance and creativity (designed to build rapport around a topic which is not overtly

personal in nature). Interviews were then guided in the first instance by the topics listed in Table

5 and in the second instance by reference to the variables in Table 4. Efforts were made to

discuss interview topics in chronological order (i.e. using the embedded interview as a truncated

form of the life case interview). Participants were, however, provided with as much choice as

possible regarding the format to be followed including, the ability to discuss topics in the order

and depth that they felt comfortable with.

TABLE 5: PARTICIPATION PREPARATION SHEET

Central Research question

The purpose of this study is to identify the pattern(s) which produce peak creative performance.

‘Peak Creative Performance’ is the term used to define adult individuals who are regarded by

their ‘field’ as being ‘experts’ who have also made a creative contribution. Related to this is the

question of whether performance and creativity are the same, related, or different phenomena.

Conduct of the interview

The objective of the interview is to have a free flowing two way conversation. You may

approach the discussion from one of two perspectives; #1 as a peak creative performer yourself

or #2 as a coach and observer of other peak creative performers. If you choose the former we

can discuss how the various influences in your life have contributed to your success. If you

choose the latter we can discuss the observations you have made regarding the important

influences which have contributed to the success of others and their teams/organisations. Please

let me know the most convenient location and time for our discussion and any additional

information you need.

Topics to be covered

1. What is the relationship between performance and creativity?

2. How does elite and creative performance come into being in the first place and

what role do biological, psychological, social, technological and economic factors

play?

3. Is there something qualitatively different about the way elite/creative individuals



and groups function once they have reached a high performing level?

4. How do elite/creative individuals and groups appear to experience life in terms of

health, happiness and wealth?

5. What it is it about elite/creative performances that make them stand out so much?

6. What is the relationship between individual and group performance?

At the commencement of interviews, participants were encouraged to make decisions regarding

the level of anonymity and the method for recording interviews (i.e. video, audio or interview

notes). Participants were also advised that they would be provided with an opportunity to

confirm these decisions at the conclusion of each interview. This approach ensured that

participants were provided with an opportunity to make informed decisions regarding

confidentiality and anonymity (i.e. in light of participant nomination as ‘Performer’ or

‘Observer’ and the breadth and depth of topics which the interview had covered). It was also

hoped that this approach would provide a sense of security for participants and enhance the

authenticity of the interview discussion as a consequence. At the conclusion of each interview,

the desired level of anonymity was confirmed on the appropriate consent form and a copy was

retained by both participant and researcher. Participants were also informed that they could

withdraw from the study at any stage, and that transcripts would be made available to

participants for verification and modification.

Of the thirty two participants (seven Performers and twenty five Observers) recruited for the

study, fifteen elected to conduct the interview on a face to face basis and fifteen elected to

conduct the interview via phone call. Two participants required that the interview be conducted

in two separate sittings. Of the face to face interviews, one was conducted in the participant’s

home, ten were conducted at their place of work and four were conducted at another location

(i.e. café). Three of the interviews were recorded on video and the remainder were audio

recorded.

The approach outlined above appeared to be effective in producing authentic responses by

participants. Participants indicated that the question sheet provided a simple and useful

reference for them to engage in discussion. Many participants indicated a longstanding interest

in the topic and it was common for them say that they had reflected on the research question

and discussed it with family and friends prior to the interview. Several participants also seemed

embarrassed that their responses did not provide definitive explanation despite having given the

topic many hours of consideration; it was common for participants to state that they “honestly

don’t know the answer”. For instance, one participant said “it’s hard, the best teams seem to

happen when a lot of things just come together, but I just can’t work out why that happens



mate”. At the conclusion of interviews many participants stated that “it was fun”, that “it wasn’t

nearly as bad as I thought”. Several participants also said “that was really good” and appeared to

enjoy sharing their knowledge and experiences and engaging in a comprehensive discussion

about the topic. Only three participants remained relatively guarded during the interview, one

participant requested a copy of the transcript for verification purposes, and only one requested

complete anonymity on the confidentiality form. All participants did however request that

names of other individuals discussed during the interview remain confidential. All participants

regarded the confidentiality forms as a matter of high importance and appeared comforted by

the usage of consent and confidentiality forms. In general, participants altered their

confidentiality forms at the end of the interview (by reducing confidentiality restrictions) as they

appeared reassured by the interview process and the topics discussed. All participants remained

willing to respond if further information was required. Two of the participants did make time

for a second interview given the time constraints placed on the first interview. None of the

participants have since withdrawn from participation in the study.

3.8 Data analysis introduction

An analytical method was needed which was appropriate for use in a systemic study of PCP

aiming to synthesise the existing literature and extend contemporary systems studies. The

method needed to more clearly define PCP, identify the pattern(s) which produce PCP (i.e.

identify patterns among biological, psychological, social and contextual influences) and utilise

the notion of ‘serial-genetic’ patterns rather than the more common ‘class-generic’ approach to

pattern identification (discussed in Appendix 10).

There are many methods which can be used to analyse the type of interview data gathered in

this study (Cronbach, 1990; Silverman, 2001). According to Feldman et al. (1994) and Dai

(2010), typically the methods of analysis which have been adopted in the literature (see Chapter

2) involve either positivist quantitative methods or ethnographic qualitative methods (Silverman,

2001; Neuman, 2005). As noted in Chapter 2, such methods have been unable to provide an

adequate explanation of PCP (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006) and, according

to Ericsson et al. (2006), the analysis of PCP interview data is problematic because:

it is difficult to identify the many mediating factors that might have been responsible

for the elite performer to win an award or write a ground breaking book. When

eminence and expertise is based on a singular or small number of unique creative

products...it is rarely possible to identify and study scientifically the key factors that

allowed these people to produce these achievements (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 13).



As outlined in Section 1.5.7, Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (1999a) suggest that the

optimal method for identifying systemic patterns includes at least five components: detailed

account of the main characteristics of the system and the relevant environment, use of ‘directive

correlation’ analysis to trace the co-evolution of the ‘system’ and ‘environment’, use of ‘causal

path analysis’ (Emery, 1976), structural corroboration between cases and data sets (Pepper,

1942), and the use of ‘retroduction’ (Emery & Emery, 1997; Emery, 1999a). Causal path analysis

is a statistical method used as an alternative to factor analysis to empirically identify a system of

coupled elements (Emery, 1976). According to Emery (1976), within social systems an

important objective may be to identify producer-product relationships. Correlations between

variables cannot by themselves establish producer-product relationships. To establish that X is a

probable producer of Y we need to establish that the probability of X producing Y is

significantly higher than any other possible producer producing both X and Y. Causal path

analysis achieves this by repeatedly grouping those variables with the highest correlation in a

correlation matrix (referred to as reiteration of the matrix). The output of the analysis is then

represented graphically and causal direction is allocated to the variables identified in the diagram.

There are similarities (and important differences) between the OST approach to data analysis,

discussed above, and four other well known data analysis methods used in PCP research:

‘grounded theory’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), ‘functional developmental history (FDH)’ (Dai,

2010), ‘analytic induction’ (Znaniecki, 1934) and ‘content analysis’ (Krippendorff, 2004).

Grounded theory allows the researcher to generate theories about PCP by ‘coding’ the data.

Content analysis provides a method by which data can be analysed to identify the most frequent

or significant issues. Together, these methods allow researchers to obtain a detailed overview of

the characteristics of a system and its environment. Similarities also exist between FDH (Dai,

2010) and ‘directive correlation analysis’ (Sommerhoff, 1974; Emery, 1999a). According to Dai

(2010):

The use of FDH seems to point in a promising direction. It amounts to using person-

in-context as a unit of analysis rather than locating human behaviour squarely as a

function of decontextualised personal traits, and looking into individual changes

(through time series analysis or microgenetic methods) in adaptive organisation of one’s

knowledge, skills and dispositions over time (Dai, 2010, p. 138).

In addition, ‘analytic induction’ (Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Silverman, 2001) is similar to

‘structural corroboration’ (Pepper, 1942) in the sense that it is used to identify, ‘universals’ or

patterns across multiple cases.



As noted in Section 3.6, modifications were made to the sample population and the data

gathering methods used in this study to improve participant access and to enhance the

authenticity and validity of interview data. These changes necessarily led to a reduction in the

richness of data available for analysis and required strategic choices to be made regarding the

most suitable method of data analysis given the objectives of the study. In making these strategic

choices, consideration was given to the objectives of the study, the limitations of traditional

methods of analysis and the essential elements of the OST method of analysis proposed by

Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (1999a). A decision was taken to utilise the method

recommended by Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (1999a) with three modifications:

directive correlation analysis was replaced with a description of the relevant environment, causal

path analysis was applied to ‘Observer’ data only, and ‘Observer’ data was used to corroborate

findings identified in the ‘Performer’ data (the primary data source). Whilst the resulting method

of data analysis is unique to this research study, it is a method of analysis which remains

consistent with the theoretical framework being used (OST), and is aligned with the research

aims and objectives.

As discussed in Appendix 10, adequate inclusion of the role of the environment in the analysis is

a key consideration. OST emphasises clear identification of the system and environment, and

adequate examination of the characteristics of each. As discussed above and in Sections 3.4 and

3.7, the methodological modifications made, and the resultant limiting of environmental data

available for analysis, led to a decision to remove the variable ‘Environmental Affordances’

(Emery, 1999a) from Table 2 and conduct a thorough description of the environment relevant

to each ‘Performer’ as a means to adequately address this consideration and to contextualise the

analysis of each case study. In the case of ‘Observers’, where description of the environment for

each of the twenty four participants was not possible, environmental affordances (i.e.

opportunities to use the vernacular term) were simply identified as being present or absent. Such

an approach is consistent with the coding approach used in relation to all variables for

‘Observer’ data.

Another important consideration related to the appropriate balance between ‘Performer’ and

‘Observer’ data, and the identification of appropriate ways to integrate qualitative and

quantitative analysis. As discussed in Section 3.3, this study is primarily a qualitative study which

seeks to combine qualitative and quantitative analysis to identify pattern(s) producing PCP.

Rather than using a purely descriptive account of the PCPer life history, or a quantitative

assessment of isolated ‘factors’ to analyse pattern(s) of PCP, this study chose to corroborate case

study analyses of the of the characteristics of six ‘Performers’ with the patterns emerging from a

causal path analysis of twenty four ‘Observer’ responses. Such an approach provides a useful

means of extending contemporary qualitative (systems based) studies of PCP. The approach



used in this study not only has the advantage of utilising an established theoretical framework

and methodology, it uses these to examine a new and underutilised sample group (i.e. comprised

of ‘Performers’ and ‘Observers’), it introduces a method by which ‘Observer’ data can support

and complement ‘Perfomer’ analyses and also utilises quantitative analysis appropriately and

judiciously to support a primarily qualitative study.

Interviews were transcribed in full in preparation for the commencement of data analysis.

Following the advice of Glaser and Strauss (1967), transcription was performed by the

researcher to enable maximum understanding of the data. Transcripts were then segregated into

‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ populations, and an assessment of interview transcripts was

conducted to ensure they were suitable for analysis. Two of the interviews (one ‘Performer’ and

one ‘Observer’), were deselected prior to data analysis. The ‘Performer’ was deselected because

the background of the individual did not neatly fit into one of the three ‘Performer’ categories

(Business, Music, and Design) which emerged. The ‘Observer’ interview was deselected because

the data within the transcript lacked ‘thickness of description’.

3.9 Performance-creativity analysis

Section 1.4 outlines the focus of this study in terms of one research question, three broad aims,

and nine supplementary questions. The primary research question asked by this study was: ‘what

are the pattern(s) which produce Peak Creative Performance (PCP)’? As outlined in Section

2.4.8, adequately defining PCP is, however, an important and related problem which is listed as

the first sub question in Section 1.4. Similarly, there is little consensus regarding the definition of

the terms performance and creativity or the relationship between these concepts. The first stage

of analysis therefore required an examination of Performer and Observer data in relation to this

question.

These issues were examined using grounded theory and the method of ‘open coding’ to

categorise the raw transcript data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Coding was performed separately for

‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ samples. Data was coded into six categories: (a) statements

identifying performance and creativity as the same phenomenon, (b) statements identifying

difference, (c) statements identifying relatedness between the concepts, (d) definitions of

performance, (e) definitions of creativity, and (f) variations (incorporating all codes which could

not be assigned to the categories above). The first three areas were designed to categorise

statements into a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set of performance and

creativity concepts. Definitions were confined to statements which contained a specific

definition of either concept. Each statement/group of statements was coded with a short



description which best reflected the core meaning of the statement. Appendix 3 contains the

raw coding for Performer and Observer data. The raw coding contained within Appendix 3 was

then checked by an independent expert (see Section 3.9 for list of independent experts) and

adjustments were made in accordance with expert feedback.

Table 6 below was populated with the codes identified in Appendix 3 and the number and

percentage of responses in each category were calculated. Results were converted into this

tabular form to allow comparison between ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data and to identify the

degree to which ‘Performers’ and ‘Observers’ see creativity and performance as similar, related

or different. Tabular comparisons were then used to formulate definitions for each of the

concepts ‘Performance’, ‘Creativity’ and PCP.

TABLE 6: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND CREATIVITY

Proportions of Performers and Observers who see High

Performance and Creativity as the Same, Different and/or Related

Performers

(n =…)

Observers

(n =…)

Total

(n =…)

n % n % n %

SAME

DIFFERENT Creative

people use

novel/differe

nt methods

Creativity is

transcending

limitations

Masters

versus

Makers

Creative

ideas require

excellent

execution

RELATED Creativity is

required for

high



performance

Creativity

extends

performance

Creativity

requires high

performance

/ excellent

execution

3.10 Performer pattern analysis

As outlined in Sections 3.3 through 3.8 above, six ‘Performer’ embedded life case histories

provided the primary source of data used for analysis. The six ‘Performer’ transcripts were

coded and scored by the researcher using the code and score system outlined above in Table 2

(results of this preliminary analysis are contained within Appendix 4). The preliminary code and

score analysis was then verified by an independent expert to obtain a valid assessment

(Silverman, 2001). Independent experts who verified scores on non OST variables included

three senior lecturers from the University of Western Sydney (Terri Mylet from the School of

Business, Diana Blom from the School of Humanities and Communication Arts (Music) and

Kaye Schumack from the School of Humanities and Communication Arts (Design). All scores

pertaining to OST variables were verified by an OST expert (Merrelyn Emery). All verified

codes were then transcribed into a master data table (see Appendix 4) and all codes with missing

data were removed from the tabulated dataset. All coding and scoring was conducted manually

by the researcher (and experts) and no data analysis software was used in this study.

Open Systems Theory requires that the unit of analysis be the ‘system-in-environment’ (Trist et

al., 1997). As such, OST analysis commences with a clear specification of the system (defined in

Appendix 10 as L11) and the environment (defined in Appendix 10 as L22). This is followed by

a thorough examination of the characteristics of the system and the environment (Emery, 1977;

Emery, 1999a). For the purposes of this study, ‘the system’ comprises ‘the person’ and ‘the

organisation’. The variables outlined in Table 2 (and scored in Appendix 4) examine the key

characteristics of the person and organisation. These characteristics were subsequently plotted

on a bar graph for the person and organisation respectively. These two graphs identify the

unique profile of characteristics possessed by the person and organisation in each of the six

cases.



Each case was initially analysed independently from other cases. Analysis of each case began

with a review of the unique profile of characteristics displayed in the bar graph. Key

characteristics and the causal linkages among system variables were then examined using

established theoretical and empirical relationships (Emery, 1977; Emery & Emery, 1993; Emery,

1999a; Emery, 1999b). Illustrative quotes and examples reflecting the scores, concepts and

causal linkages were drawn from each transcript to provide a ‘thick description’ of each case.

As discussed in Section 3.8, conducting comprehensive ‘directive correlation’ analysis

(Sommerhoff, 1974; Emery, 1999a) in relation to the six ‘Performer’ life history cases was

outside the scope of this study. In addition, the embedded life case interviews used for data

gathering in this study were limited in terms of the contextual data which could be obtained. An

alternative method of contextual analysis was therefore needed in order to examine the extent of

the environmental contribution (see Section 3.8). Central to this alternative approach to

contextual analysis was the inclusion of detailed description of each PCPers environment. Two

sources of information were used to develop each description: (a) statements made by

‘Performers’ about their environment and (b) environmental influences identified in the

literature (i.e. environmental events occurring in the domain and time period relevant to each

‘Performer’) (Cresswell & Fabinyi, 1999; Macintyre, 1999; Burdek, 2001; Brandon, Welch &

Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009; Mclean, 2012). Environmental events in the literature were then

‘anchored’ to ‘Performer’ statements as a means of defining and describing the relevant

environment and to capture the OST notion of environmental affordances. In cases where

embedded case studies provided limited ‘Performer’ references to the environment, participant

age, geographical location and domain of interest were utilised to identify the most relevant

influences in the literature. In these cases the appropriate literature was referenced in place of

‘Performer’ statements to identify basis upon which each environmental influence was selected.

This procedure yielded a description of the PCPers environment at the beginning of each case

study.

The analysis of environment, person and organisation was then summarised into a chronology

of events thought to represent the pattern which produced PCP in that case. This procedure

was then repeated for each ‘Performer’ case.

3.11 Structural corroboration- performers

Structural corroboration is the process by which data sets from differing domains are compared,

and functionally similar phenomena are identified (Pepper, 1942). The method shares similarities

with the well-known principle of ‘triangulation’ of results (Silverman, 2001) and, according to



Emery (1999a), is a method which is useful for the identification of serial-genetic patterns (i.e.

the patterns relevant to the aims of this study). A variety of methods have been used to

structurally corroborate the findings of PCP studies (Ochse, 1990). For instance, Gardner (1994)

used the ‘ideal case’, and Wallace and Gruber (1989) utilised the ‘epitome’ method for case

comparison.

Statistical methods such as ‘analysis of variance’ are generally regarded as being of limited use

for comparing small samples such as a sample of six ‘Performers’ in this study (Berenson,

Krehbiel & Levine, 2008). Comparison of the patterns producing PCP among the six

‘Performers’ in this study was, instead, accomplished via the development of a table identifying

the similarities and differences between the cases. The use of this tabular comparison allowed

identification of areas where there was exact correspondence between ‘Performer’ scores, as well

as identification of those areas where there was a high degree of similarity but not exact

correspondence between scores (i.e. in cases where five of the six ‘Performers’ received the

same score).

The six ‘Performer’ case studies were split into three domains: ‘Business’, ‘Music’ and ‘Design”

to reflect the occupations of the participants. This analytical procedure of structural

corroboration, outlined above, was repeated for each of these three domains to identify any

domain specific patterns of PCP.

3.12 Observer pattern analysis

As outlined in Sections 3.3 through 3.8 above, ‘Observer’ data was gathered from twenty four

participants to support the primary analysis (i.e. ‘Performer’ life case histories). The methods of

data coding, scoring and verification outlined in Section 3.9, were necessarily modified to

accommodate the larger ‘Observer’ sample size and the supporting nature of this data.

‘Observer’ data was recorded in binary terms to indicate either presence or absence of each

variable. Appendix 5 contains an ‘X’ to indicate that the ‘Observer’ believed the variable was an

important contributor to PCP and a ‘blank’ to indicate otherwise.

As discussed in Section 3.7, ‘Causal Path Analysis’ (McQuitty, 1964; Emery, 1976), was

identified as a potentially fruitful method for identifying the systemic patterns which exist within

the ‘Observer’ data set. Illustrating the power of the method in this regard, Emery (1976) argues

that:



If there are no arithmetic errors, then the debate about interpretation of the results is

restricted to the debate about whether the arrows should point one way or the

other...beyond that the debate is about the design of the study (Emery 1976, p. 335).

A ‘Geisser Index’ (Geisser, 1958; Emery & Emery, 1979) was used to prepare ‘Observer data’

for Causal Path Analysis. According to Emery and Emery (1979, p. 342), this index is used to

resolve “the problems associated with data that is in the form: A, not-A and B, not-B”. In

addition to this, variables lacking sufficient sample size for analysis were excluded from the

analysis, and this yielded an ‘Observer’ matrix containing forty one remaining variables. This

data was entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) to produce a correlation

matrix (Appendix 6: Observer Correlation Matrix M0). This matrix was reiterated nine times in

accordance with the procedure outlined by McQuitty (1964) and further elaborated by Emery

(1976). Causal Path diagrams were produced on the fifth, seventh and ninth reiteration of this

correlation matrix. The Causal Path Analysis was then reviewed by an external expert (Merrelyn

Emery) to ensure correct application of the procedure.

Observer sample sizes were insufficient to perform Causal Path Analysis by domain. Sample

sizes by domain were:

1. Sport (n = 10)

2. Business (n = 7)

3. State Emergency Services (SES) (n = 3)

4. Political (n = 2)

5. Artistic (Music and Design) (n = 2).

Raw coding sheets are not included as an appendix due to the large sample size, however

Appendix 5 contains a data table of ‘Observer’ responses and Appendix 6 contains the source

correlation matrix derived from the ‘Observer’ data table.

3.13 Structural corroboration: performers and observers

The method of structural corroboration was introduced in Section 3.10. Throughout this study,

it has been maintained that corroboration of the pattern of results is of greater importance than

the absolute significance of any single variable. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.10, the

method of structural corroboration does not require statistical comparison (Pepper, 1942) and,

in the case of this study, statistical comparison of ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ patterns is

inappropriate. Consequently, the procedure used to corroborate ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data



utilised a system of coding variables with an ‘X’ or ‘Y’ to reflect the significance of the variables

contained within the respective data sets.

Variables in the comparison table were labelled ‘X’ in the ‘Performer’ table to indicate one

hundred percent agreement in scoring across all six ‘Performers’. Variables were labelled ‘Y’ in

the ‘Performer’ table to indicate that the same score was received from five out of the six

‘Performers’. The table was left blank for variables below this threshold. Variables were labelled

‘X’ in the ‘Observers’ table to indicate that they were identified as significant within the causal

path analysis. Variables were labelled ‘Y’ in the ‘Observers’ table to indicate when more than

fifty percent of ‘Observers’ had discussed the significance of the variable.

The analysis of the similarities and differences in the pattern of ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data

was conducted by comparing the presence or absence of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ in each column of the

consolidated table. In cases where both groups (Performers and Observers) listed an ‘X’ or ‘Y’,

the variable was coded ‘Same’. In cases where one group listed ‘X’ and the other group listed

‘Y’, the variable was coded ‘Similar’, and in cases where one group listed a blank, the variable

was coded ‘Different’. From this table, a profile of the PCP was identified.

As was the case for ‘Performer’ data, ‘Observer’ sample sizes are small when broken down by

domain, and in the case of Music and Design the sample size is one. For completeness however,

the pattern of responses provided by ‘Performers’ was compared with ‘Observers’ by domain.

In the Business domain ‘Observer’ responses were coded with an ‘X’ (as significant) if more

than 75% of participants identified the variable, and ‘Y’ if more than 50% of participants

identified the variable. In the domains of Music (n=1) and Design (n=1) all responses were

coded with an ‘X’ for comparison with ‘Performer’ data.

3.14 Summary of methodology

This chapter has provided an overview of, and justification for, the methodology used in this

research study. The methodology used is not only appropriate to the research aims outlined in

Section 1.4, it addresses many of the gaps identified within the contemporary literature and

introduces methodological advances envisaged to extend the contemporary research on PCP.

This study is primarily a qualitative study of ‘Performers’ identified using a structured approach

to theoretical sampling, embedded life case studies, a non-directive data gathering approach and

a structured OST approach toward case study analysis. A second larger sample of ‘Observers’

(identified and interviewed in the same way) was used to support and corroborate the



‘Performer’ study using an appropriate method (Causal Path Analysis). Philosophically and

theoretically the study draws on the strengths of OST, interpretive research and the philosophy

of realism. Accordingly, tests of validity and reliability remain focused on the authenticity and

trustworthiness of procedures used for data and analysis. The role of quantitative analysis is

clearly located as a means of summarising qualitative data and thematic analysis, rather than

performing statistical analysis or attempting to quantify qualitative data.

The methodology used in this study offers several advantages over existing PCP research

methods and makes a range of contributions to this literature. Section 2.4.8 discussed concerns

regarding the inadequate definition of PCP. In order to address these concerns, this study

introduced a procedure for empirically defining PCP at the commencement of the study. In

addition, this definition offers the advantage of being developed in ‘serial-genetic’ terms as

outlined in Appendix 10. Section 1.5.4 and Chapter 2 discussed concerns regarding the lack of

clear theoretical and operationalised frameworks of variables in PCP studies. In contrast, this

study utilised an established theoretical framework containing precise functional definitions for

each concept and measurement scales. The literature in Chapter 1 recommended the use of

theoretical sampling, multiple case studies and consensually defined unambiguous cases of PCP.

This study incorporates these recommendations and extends and structures the approach used

in contemporary PCP by developing a performance typology and sampling frame which

introduces the advantage of identifying ‘Observers’ (an historically underutilised group of

participants), various types of PCP and two different types of PCPers. The study incorporates

recommendations to humanise the participant recruitment and interview process and introduces

the use of OST methods of structured case study analysis and Causal Path Analysis as a novel

means of pattern identification not previously used in PCP research. Such methods of pattern

identification enabled the study to identify ‘serial-genetic’ patterns of PCP as opposed to

traditional ‘class-generic’ patterns, but this approach also serves to transcend the conflict

between idiographic and nomothetic methods. The chapter also identified a potentially optimal

methodology for the study of PCP, discussed the ways in which this study reflects modifications

to this method suitable for a PhD study, and foreshadowed how the methodology used in this

study could be scaled up to represent a comprehensive research program into PCP.

The following chapter presents the results of the study.

Chapter 4: Results


Chapter 4: Results

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of the results chapter is to detail the findings of this research study. The results of

the study are reported in two sections: (a) results which clarify the definition of PCP, (b) results

which identify patterns producing PCP. Results regarding the patterns producing PCP are

presented in three sub-sections, the first presents the patterns identified within the ‘Performer’

data, the second, presents the patterns identified within the ‘Observer’ data, and the third

compares ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ patterns. The chapter establishes an empirically based

definition which shows that the highest levels of performance involve creativity thereby

validating the concept of PCP. The chapter also presents a pattern of twelve variables which

produce PCP. No domain specific patterns of PCP are identified.

4.2 Defining PCP

Table 7 shows the percentages of participants who discussed the relationship between creativity

and high performance. As stated in Section 3.3, sample sizes, percentage responses and tabular

formatting were used to clarify key themes, not to quantify qualitative data. In several cases,

responses represent a sample of one or two participants. In such cases, percentages are included

for completeness only. In addition, the frequency scores reported in Table 7 reflect the number

of times each concept is discussed by a participant; meaning that a single participant may discuss

a single concept more than once. Percentage scores are calculated by dividing the frequency of

response for each code (i.e. Master versus Maker) by the sum of responses reported in the

category of codes (i.e. Same, Different or Related).

Of the total respondents who offered comments on the relationship between performance and

creativity, 63% believed that high performance and creativity are different phenomena and 34%

believed that they are related phenomena. Only 3% of total respondents saw creativity and

performance as the same.

Of those participants who saw performance and creativity as different, 40% believe that two

distinct profiles exist. This finding is consistent with the preliminary conceptualisation proposed

in the performance typology (see Section 3.4). Consequently, the distinction between

performance and creativity had been coded ‘Master’ and ‘Maker’. Illustrating this distinction one

participant said:

Chapter 4: Results


I don’t see any correlation between (performance and creativity)...the execution of the

skills...your 10 hours practice...It’s actually the execution of the notes...look at the

classical players....now most of them aren’t creative at all. They can’t compose, they

don’t arrange, they reproduce. Their performance level...of what is written out...is

unbelievable...I don’t think he has written a piece or arranged a piece in his life. So the

creative, it’s almost completely separate.

Participants distinguishing between ‘Master’ and ‘Maker’ profiles recognised that either profile

can be effective and valuable when the work produced is recognised as being appropriate to the

context. For instance, one participant said: “I’ve seen people who are totally non creative be

effective and also people who are highly creative be effective”. Participants also saw a

distinction in the action orientation of these two profiles. The ‘Master’ was seen as being

“unlikely to come up with a novel approach or a new idea....however he is likely to execute

well”.

Of the participants who believed creativity and performance are different, 35% believe that

creative ideas must be put into action before they can be regarded as creative. Illustrating this

point, one participant said that “there are people with wonderful ideas but can’t execute them so

they don’t get there”. Similarly another participant said that “in start-up they don’t get off the

ground without the creative person but also never succeed without the execution”.

Fifty four percent of participants, who regarded high performance and creativity as related

phenomena, believed that creativity is necessary for one to be regarded as high performing.

According to one participant “performance is always higher when it is creative versus non

creative …in our industry the notion of business performance and creativity move together”.

According to another respondent: “if they are creative and they are innovative and they do think

outside the box then yes, that’s probably the way they’ll be considered as... one of the leading

people who work in that area”.

TABLE 7: ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AND CREATIVITY RELATIONSHIP

Proportions of Performers and Observers who see High

Performance and Creativity as the Same, Different and/or Related

Performers

(n=6)

Observers

(n=24)

Total

(n=30)

Chapter 4: Results


n % n % n %

SAME 1 100% 0 0% 1 100%

DIFFERENT Creative

people use

novel/differe

nt methods

1 13% 3 25% 4 20%

Creativity is

transcending

limitations

0 0% 1 8% 1 5%

Masters

versus

Makers

4 50% 4 33% 8 40%

Creative

ideas require

excellent

execution

3 38% 4 33% 7 35%

RELATED Creativity is

required for

high

performance

2 67% 4 50% 6 54%

Creativity

extends

performance

0 0% 3 38% 3 27%

Creativity

requires high

performance

/ excellent

execution

1 33% 1 13% 2 18%

Table 8 shows the percentage of participants who made statements which clearly defined high

performance and creativity. All participant statements which failed to give a definition of

creativity were removed from this analysis. To be classified as a definition of performance or

creativity participants must have made statements such as; “creativity means or is defined

as.......”, or “high performance means/or is defined as.........”.

Of the total responses, 42% of participants believed that high performance means satisfying the

audience or context. Three examples of participant statements which reflect this finding are

Chapter 4: Results


outlined below. Participant one said that “companies are judged by their clients...they judge

them in a number of ways.... the client determines how they assess and how their judged”.

Participant two argued that “how you measure success is different for different people”.

Discussing high performance in two different contexts, participant three said that “a high

performer…reads and plays music well in the context of an orchestra...a high performer will be

someone who can improvise in a circumstance which requires it”.

Creativity was defined as ‘transcending limitations’ by 39% of all respondents (i.e. 43% of

Observers and 33% of Performers). One participant defined the transcendence of limitations in

the following way: “you transcend and include—you don’t throw out the methods of the past—

you take them along with you but you transcend the expectations”. Another participant said that

“a product or idea is regarded as creative if it ... creates the ability for real people to do

something they couldn’t do before”. A third participant echoed these comments and viewed

creativity as creating new possibilities, “not just new ways of doing things—it can be about

totally new spaces to be in”

One third (33%) of participants believe that high performance should be defined as “excellent

and meticulous execution, doing what you do on a consistent basis”. Expressing this same

concept in a different manner, another participant said that “(performance) has got to do with

attitude and application and work ethic...and discipline”. According to a third participant, whose

PCP is associated with running a business, his ability to execute effectively and “the

performance came from ... providing the capital for me to begin acquiring other customers,

hiring the right sort of people”.

Nearly a quarter of all respondents (22%) defined creativity as the use of novel or different

methods. These respondents described creativity as: “thinking outside the box”, “looking in a

fresh way to solve (problems)”, and “the ability to have fresh ideas and think in new directions

and new angles...(being) prepared to turn around and swim against the tide...move in different

directions, encounter ...opportunities ...recognise them ...and take advantage of them”.

Taken together, these findings provide support for a definition of creativity incorporating the

criteria of ‘novelty and appropriateness’ (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006). Comments from

several participants clearly illustrate the way in which creativity is thought of as an amalgam of

novel solutions that are contextually appropriate and, as a result, are able to transcend exiting

boundaries. According to these participants potential creators must “understand what the

boundaries need to be...know how far they can take it without losing their existing customers”.

Furthermore they must develop “strong ideas that that actually…connect with the client...then

Chapter 4: Results


more importantly connect with the end user”. Finally they must find a way of “striking a chord

with the listener and hopefully give the listener a fresh way of seeing things”.

TABLE 8: ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AND CREATIVITY DEFINITIONS

Performer/Observer Definitions of Peak Performance and Creativity

Performers

(n=6)

Observers

(n=24) Total

n % n % n %

DEFINITION

OF PEAK

PERFORMANCE

Performance is

excellent execution

2 33% 2 33% 4 33%

Performance is

problem solving 1 17% 2 33% 3 25%

Performance is

satisfying

audience/context

3 50% 2 33% 5 42%

DEFINITION

OF

CREATIVITY

Creativity is

transcending

limitations

3 33% 6 43% 9 39%

Creativity is

satisfying

audience/context

3 33% 0 0% 3 13%

Creativity is using

novel/different

methods

2 22% 3 21% 5 22%

Creativity is

recombining ideas 0 0% 3 21% 3 13%

Creativity is

problem solving 1 11% 2 14% 3 13%

Table 9 consolidates the analysis from Tables 7 and 8 to provide an overall analysis of the

percentage of ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ statements that describe high performance and

creativity as being the same, different or related. The table initially summarises the findings from

Table 7 (i.e. the percentage of participant statements that regarded creativity and performance as

the same, different or related). The table then groups the definitions of creativity and

performance provided in Table 8 into three categories; definitions implying sameness,

Chapter 4: Results


definitions implying difference and definitions implying relatedness. Categories were then

combined to yield a summary matrix (appended to the bottom of Table 9). Of all the statements

and definitions provided (as outlined above, the number of statements and definitions may

exceed the number of participants due to multiple responses by participants), 48% indicated that

creativity and high performance are different phenomena. Nearly one third (30%) identified

them as related and only 22% regarded them as the same phenomenon.

TABLE 9: CONSOLIDATED PERFORMANCE AND CREATIVITY ANALYSIS

Consolidated Table: Definition, Same, Different and/or Related

Performers (n=6) Observers (n=24) Total

n % n % n %

Same 1 8% 0 0% 1 3%

Different 8 67% 12 60% 20 63%

Related 3 25% 8 40% 11 34%

Definitions that imply

difference 4 27% 8 40% 12 34%

Performance is excellent

execution 2 13% 2 10% 4 11%

Creativity is using

novel/different methods 2 13% 3 15% 5 14%

Creativity is recombining ideas 0 0% 3 15% 3 9%

Definitions that imply

sameness 8 53% 6 30% 14 40%

Performance is problem

solving 1 7% 2 10% 3 9%

Creativity is problem solving 1 7% 2 10% 3 9%

Performance is satisfying

audience/context 3 20% 2 10% 5 14%

Creativity is satisfying

audience/context 3 20% 0 0% 3 9%

Definitions of relationship

between high performance

and creativity*

3 20% 6 30% 9 26%

Chapter 4: Results


Creativity is transcending

limitations 3 20% 6 30% 9 26%

Variations on creativity

Creativity is rare 0

2

2

Everybody is born creative 1

4

5

There is no such thing as a

new idea/ Creativity is

recombining ideas

1

3

4

Creativity is an individual

phenomenon 0

1

1

There can be group creativity

without individual creativity 0

1

1

Creativity requires

understanding of

context/society

1

0

1

Technology enables creativity 1

0

1

Creativity is culmination of

coevolving process 1

0

1

TOTAL IMPLYING

SAMENESS 9 33% 6 15% 15 22%

TOTAL IMPLYING

DIFFERENCE 12 44% 20 50% 32 48%

TOTAL IMPLYING

RELATIONSHIP 6 22% 14 35% 20 30%

To conclude, the sample of Performers (n=6) and Observers (n=24) suggest that whilst high

performance and creativity are related, for practical purposes they are different phenomena.

Participants believed that high performance involves excellent execution and satisfying the

audience (i.e. meeting contextual requirements), whereas creativity involves the use of novel and

different methods to transcend limitations. It is clear, however, that participants viewed the

highest levels of performance as involving creativity.

It therefore makes sense to refer to the highest levels of human achievement as “Peak Creative

Performance”.

Chapter 4: Results


4.3 Performer patterns of PCP

4.3.1 Introduction

The section below provides an analysis of the embedded life case histories of six ‘Performers’.

Two are ‘business people’, two are ‘musicians’ and two are ‘designers’. Each profile will be

presented in the following format:

1. Overview.

2. Characteristics of the environment.

3. Characteristics of the person.

4. Characteristics of the organisation.

5. Pattern of PCP.

The overview provides some background information about the ‘Performer’ and the nature of

his or her achievements. The analysis then examines the characteristics of the environment (as

recommended in Sections 2.13.7, 3.4 and 3.9) and those contextual influences which have

positively or negatively impacted upon the life and career of the ‘Performer’. As outlined in

Section 3.9, the optimal OST method of examining the environment has been modified to suit

the requirements of this research study. This is followed by conceptualising the ‘system’ as

incorporating two dimensions; the person and the organisation (as discussed in Appendix 10).

The characteristics of the person and organisation are divided into several sub sections drawn

from the table of variables outlined in Table 2. Variables (and therefore sub headings) are

excluded where no data is available. Each case study concludes with a summary of the pattern of

PCP which emerges from the individual case being examined.

Throughout the analysis of the six case studies, charts are used to provide a graphical

representation of the profile of scores for the person and organisation. As discussed above, the

variables which are included in each profile (and used as headings throughout each case) are

drawn directly from Table 2. Throughout the case study analysis, reference is made to whether a

particular participant is scored as being average, above average or below average. As discussed in

Section 3.4, Table 2 defines the benchmark data against which the determination of above or

below average is made. For instance, scores regarding the variable of ‘socio-economic status’ are

determined by comparing participant descriptions with the definitions used by the Australian

Bureau of Statistics (series no 4102.0). During the analysis of each case study, a thick description

of each variable is provided which reflects the profile of ‘Performer’ scores. In addition, as

recommended by Glasser and Strauss (1967) and Emery (1999a) each variable is examined for

its theoretical and empirical relationship to other variables within the case. The provision of a

Chapter 4: Results


profile of scores and the linkage to Table 2 is provided for transparency reasons only. It is

envisaged that the detailed discussion of each variable will remove the need for continual

reference to Table 2 or Appendix 10 (Open Systems Theory). Further to this end; the name of

each ‘concept’ and ‘variable’ is identified in inverted commas (in cases where the concepts or

variables are used in a sentence) or brackets (in cases where the discussion in the previous

sentence relates to the concept or variable) to assist the reader. In order to keep each case study

to an appropriate length, definitions of each variable (already outlined in Appendix 10) are not

reproduced in this chapter.

4.3.2 Profile of musician #1

4.3.2.1 Overview

Musician #1 (M1) is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading solo acoustic guitarists. M1 is

recognised for his technical mastery and for what musicians colloquially term ‘fret-board

gymnastics’. M1 is invited to perform at events all over the world and continues to play to small

audiences at domestic events.

M1 grew up in Victoria; however, he has spent much of his adult life residing in Newcastle

NSW. He is currently in his mid-40’s and is married with no children. M1 and his wife produce

and distribute their own music and have a high level of control over musical content and

performance schedules as a consequence.

4.3.2.2 Characteristics of the environment

M1 was born toward the end of a sustained period of economic growth (The Australian Golden

Age 1945-64) (Macintyre, 1999; Attard, 2010; Mclean, 2012). Standards of living and

opportunities for Australians were high during this period (Mclean, 2012) and, following a major

shift in values away from the conservatism of the 1950’s (Murphy & Smart, 1993), the prevailing

culture encouraged independence and creativity (O’Neill, 2011). Recognising the contribution

that this aspect of the environment made to his career, M1 said “we were allowed to dig holes

and climb trees and all that sort of stuff, so the scrapes and the fights and the bruises all add to

your personality. That’s what makes it, all those struggles you’ve had”.

M1’s adolescent years unfolded against the backdrop of a fertile musical period (Creswell &

Fabinyi, 1999). Entirely new styles of music and modes of playing music (including new styles of

guitar playing) were introduced (McFarlane, 2000) during the counterculture of the 1960’s

(O’Neill, 2011) and the rock and roll era of the 1970’s (Creswell & Fabinyi, 1999; McFarlane,

Chapter 4: Results


2000). The success of Australian music acts such as Sherbet, Cold Chisel and Icehouse during

this period laid the foundations for the formation of the Australian record industry (Creswell &

Fabinyi, 1999; McFarlane, 2000). The period was also associated with the introduction of music

based television programs such as ‘Bandstand’ and ‘Countdown’ (Wilmouth, 1993) and the

development of a thriving live music scene in Australian pubs and clubs (Wilmouth, 1993;

Sumerling, 1998). The growth of live music was further supported by the extension of pub and

club opening times (the end of the six o’clock swill) (Dunstan, 1968; Phillips, 1980; Sumerling,

1998), the introduction of the Sunbury music festival (in M1’s home town) (Rawlins, 1986), and

an increased demand for musical instruments and uptake of music lessons by young people

(Creswell & Fabinyi, 1999; McFarlane, 2000). Increased promotion of recorded music (both

popular and local) also occurred with the establishment of independent radio stations such as

Triple J in 1972 (Elder & Wales, 1984; McFarlane, 2000).

Living in Melbourne, M1 was located at the epicentre of Australian music (Rawlins, 1986;

McFarlane, 2000), and describes the proliferation of amateur bands as the emergence of a:

Jamming culture...I was raised on that…so that was the stuff I played as a kid,…that

was all of the music, you know it was all Aussie bands, the big bands, you would play

that. (It was all around you), yeah and I loved it, and I came through just on the back of

when people would go and jam with other bands and all that,…That used to be

fantastic. Yeah and exciting for the bands and the audience and everything, it was just

this hub.

Following the 1960’s (during the infancy of the Australian record industry), talent shows became

a popular way to support Australian acts (Creswell et al., 1999; Wilmouth, 1993). According to

M1, talent shows and the promotion of grassroots music by ABC radio played an important role

during the early stages of his solo career. Despite this, M1 argues that development of the

acoustic guitar market remained fairly limited during the time when virtuoso electric guitar

playing became widespread (1980’s and 1990’s) (McFarlane, 2000).

The global economy (Walker, Perry & Murphy-Walker, 1987; Perkins, 1990) and widespread

adoption of internet (Ryan, 2010; Carr, 2011) emerged as an increasingly significant feature of

the environment during the more recent years of M1’s career. According to M1, these influences

have had adaptive and dissociative consequences. For instance, M1 argues that:

The kids coming through now are getting really good really quick, cause they’ve got

access to the web… it really blows me away how good they get at a young age…. but

Chapter 4: Results


none of them have got any personality so I’ll be interested to see where it ends up cause

these kids have never kicked a football, they’ve never fallen off their BMX bikes, and

they have been protected by their parents, you know, cause that’s the way it is now.

Today’s environment is characterised by a rapid rate of change, proliferation of consumer

choice and consumer information overload (Cincotta, 1997; Emery, 1999a; .Godin, 1999; Hamel

& Prahalad, 1999; Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001; Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2011; Szoka & Marcus, 2011)

Competitive strategies used by large and small organisations (including musicians) are becoming

increasingly influenced by various forms of ‘social engineering’ (Emery, 1999a) branding and

marketing (Pine II, 1992; Godin, 1999; Nordstrom & Ridderstrale, 2007; Bedeian, 2011; Kotler

& Armstrong, 2011; Scott, 2011). According to M1, for those musicians who are not regarded as

unique:

The agents are saying that’s your set list, you’ve got to play ‘Moon Dance’ and you’ve

got to play ‘Brown Eyed Girl’…It’s a worldwide thing. …(creativity has) kind of gone

now cause of the drum machines, everything is programmed and that’s a bummer...It’s

just a product push by the TV station who has an affiliation with the record company

who is trying to push this new R&B crap artist.

M1 also discussed the impact of new computing technologies (such as digital music players, file

sharing technologies, electronic disk jockey software, interactive web based digital video games

and social networking sites) (Ceruzzi, 2003; Ryan, 2010; Szoka & Marcus, 2011) and believes

that these technologies are increasing levels of dissociation and superficiality in society.

According to M1:

It’s the pop stars thing that they’re really only interested in it for the fame, and the same

people that enter pop stars enter big brother, they just want that fame...The kids and

the generations coming through now are not interested in music. They go to concerts

and there’s a celebrity up there who just happens to be singing. And the festivals; they

go to the festivals cause they get muddy and dirty and stoned and there just happens to

be some bands on they’ve heard of so they’re happy, cause they can hold up the phone

you know showing their mates that they are at an important concert but they’re not

really any interest in it... it’s a bombardment of noise where were being trained to turn

Chapter 4: Results


off….the pop generation it’s just product…..the kids now are not interested in the

music

M1 also regards the recent introduction of new smoking and gambling restrictions as having a

significant impact on both the popularity and quality of live music within Australia. According

to M1:

Bands used to go down to Melbourne and do showcase gigs for the media in the 70’s

and 80’s, but that went. The pub bands in Australia were fantastic you know it was all

day every day, you know every night they would be playing somewhere. You know like

the Sherbets and Hush, all the bands that I grew up with, you know Australian Crawl,

they’d just be working every night in pubs and that’s how they got good.

Another emerging trend identified by M1, is the resurgence of ‘unplugged’ music, ‘solo music’

and traditional ‘rock and roll’ (Littleton, 1994). M1 believes that audiences want more authentic

forms of musical experience and this is one factor boosting his popularity. In M1’s view he is

“getting younger audiences to my gigs to cause they’re sort of seeing, it’s real. They want to hang

onto something that’s real.”

Summarising the contextual factors influencing M1’s PCP, it would seem that M1 was fortunate

to grow up during a time when the economic, cultural and musical context provided support,

opportunity and stimulation. The early stages of M1’s career appear to have been bolstered by

the continuing influence of talent shows and local radio. In recent years M1’s career has been

both hampered and supported by contextual influences. New technologies have produced

superficiality and dissociation among audiences, as well as a desire to return to more authentic

forms of music. Reductions in the availability of live music and increases in the availability of

‘socially engineered’ music have also served to emphasise the uniqueness of players such as M1.

4.3.2.3 Characteristics of the person

Chart 1 below shows the pattern of person based characteristics that have contributed to M1

becoming recognised as an acoustic guitar virtuoso. As discussed in Section 3.4, mutually

exclusive and collectively exhaustive measurement categories and scales were established for

each variable. Statements from interview data were coded and scored in accordance with Table 2

and verified by independent experts. Chart 1 provides a graphical representation of the scores

M1 received on each variable outlined in Table 2 (variables are defined in Appendix 10). For

Chapter 4: Results


instance in Chart 1 below, M1 received a score of 1 on the variable ‘Interests’. According to

Table 2, most people have an average of between 2 and 3 interests and a score of 1 is received if

the participant has one interest only (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). A score of 3 is

received if the participant has more than three interests. M1’s score suggests a below average

number of ‘Interests’.

CHART 1: PROFILE OF M1: THE PERSON


M1 scores a 2 on the scale measuring socio-economic status (see first variable in Chart 1 above;

SES), meaning that his family’s socio-economic status (SES) was average in comparison to the

general Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1994; 2009). M1 describes his

upbringing as being one of “a really normal existence”. It is therefore assumed that M1 was

afforded an average degree of stimulation and opportunity during his early years.

Goals and interests

A significant feature of M1’s profile is his level of focus. When compared with data from the

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006), M1 scores in the below average range on both the

number of ‘Interests’ and lifelong pursuits (Goals). It appears that M1 first established this

relatively narrow range of goals during his teenage years and became increasingly clear (during

his mid-20’s) that guitar playing would become the focus of his life. According to M1:

Chapter 4: Results


When I was learning my craft in my late teens…I would go to the pubs, you know

that’s when music was great in the pubs and good players, and you would see someone

doing something and rather than be blown away…(did that curiosity start early on), I

think so, cause I used to play Aussie Rules in Victoria, but I never had this mindset for

that, and I was ok you know in the low grades I was ok, and I had reasonable skills but

if I had this mindset…(music just grabbed you) yeah and…it’s never altered to this day.

Further reinforcing the depiction of M1 as an individual who is totally focused on his music, is

his below average score on the scale measuring the ‘Breadth of Interests’. M1 spends time with

his wife, and also states that he has, “bungee jumped and um, white water rafted and all those

things”, however for M1 “it’s like, that’s great, that’s alright but I’m not a thrill seeker, that’s not

as good or as lasting as the gig”.

Breadth of talent and skill

Relatively little data is available on which to assess M1’s breadth of talent within the field. In this

research study, a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive range of variables were

established to measure breadth of talent and skills. The variable designed to identify the scope

of M1’s innate ability within the musical field was ‘Breadth of Talent in Field’. While lacking

data upon which to score this variable, M1’s statement that “most aspects of guitar playing came

fairly easily (to him)” is used as a means of making a judgement on this criterion. M1 is therefore

scored as having developed an above average ‘Breadth of Learned Skill in Field’. According to

M1, developing this breadth of guitar playing skills is “like filling your toolbox up with your

tools so you’ve got...many tools at your disposal”. In terms of skills which are unrelated to guitar

playing (Breadth Talent Not in Field), M1 only referred to one example, that is his time playing

Aussie Rules as a youngster. M1 therefore appears to possess a relatively specialised range of

talents and skills centred upon his musical pursuits.

Expertise

One of the most distinctive features of M1’s profile is the amount of time and effort devoted to

practising guitar skills, particularly during his teenage and early adult years, when he would “sit

down all day every day…doing…10 hours practice…training, which is your scales, nothing to

do with music”. According to M1 this practice (i.e. the “deliberate practice” described by

Ericsson et al. (2006)) is critical for the “the execution of the skills” and “the execution of the

notes”.

Chapter 4: Results


M1 is also fully aware of the extent and distinctiveness of the skills he has developed (Expertise

Learned in Field), and believes that he has his “own thing on acoustic”, whereas he “was just

another good guitarist on electric” and this meant that he “had to choose…and just immerse

yourself…because there are just too much there too many techniques in different styles of

music”.

It is also significant that M1’s learned expertise is underpinned by the highest level of innate

ability (Expertise Talent in Field). M1 is convinced that this innate ability has been an important

contributor to his PCP and feels “really lucky that…(he) can compose”. Whilst he believes that

“there are guys that just work harder, yeah they train and they train and they work harder than

everyone else”, he has observed that if they have not “been born with the ability to read the

bounce… something that your gifted with” they won’t have “that extra five percent” you

achieve “if the music is in you”.

Whilst M1 suggests that he has “reasonable skills” as an AFL player, there is no other evidence

to suggest his aptitude should score outside the average range in sport or any other pursuit

outside of music (Expertise Talent Not in Field).

Ideal seeking behaviour

M1 appears to be constantly striving to perfect his guitar playing and his musical performances.

In his view, “the problem is, there is no such thing as good enough, and that leads to, I suppose,

a lack of contentment forever...It’s a problem, it’s a lifetime quest”. M1 appears to find other

pursuits dissatisfying and tries to keep them out of his life. The degree to which M1 has pursued

his ideals is also reflected in the nature of his musical career and his social life. M1 has preferred

to pursue a solo career where he “had his own voice”. Consequently, he has chosen to “never

really give myself (himself) to bands”. M1 does not attempt to relate to others or belong to a

group (the ideal of Homonomy), however he is comfortable with social exchanges that are

related to his pursuits. For instance, M1 will “happily play to thousands of people but five

people, nah”. He is comfortable with “one on one no worries or a thousand” but not mid-sized

socially oriented groups and explains that he has “five people in the whole world…(who are

friends) one in Victoria, and the rest are overseas”.

M1 describes himself as a “big preacher”, giving kids and students what he considers to be

important advice (Nurturance). The ideal of ‘Nurturance’ is discussed in Appendix 10 and

means cultivating that which enhances health and beauty and is the opposite of exploitation. M1

does not appear to pursue wealth or status. He seems to genuinely care that his audiences take

part in a high quality musical experience, and in his words this is “when the music gets in” (the

Chapter 4: Results


ideal of Humanity). This cannot, however, be divorced from his need to “never put in a bad

gig” and achieve perfection in music for himself.

Another distinctive feature of M1’s profile is his unrelenting pursuit of the ideal of ‘Beauty’.

According to M1:

It’s almost a Buddhist thing, you get rid of…all that baggage and you allow the success

to grow from it, and find that things happen from it...It’s a reflection of your

personality, very much your personality comes out in your playing and that’s what

makes the difference. And that’s an art thing, you know painters or whatever, it’s really

important, that’s what makes the difference...I really believe there is a power…in telling

the truth, yeah telling the truth in a performance when you’re on stage. Always tell the

truth with your performance, because people know, you know they can recognise a

fake, they don’t know they can, but they can.

Purposefulness

In addition to his ‘Ideal Seeking’, M1’s reference to benchmarks and persistence in achieving

these benchmarks attests to his ‘Purposefulness’. He describes his ability to persist through “a

lot of shitty times” and believes that “it’s only the tough survive”. Moreover, he recognises that

success is “not based on ability sometimes”, but rather it is the result of “grit and

determination”.

Motivational level

M1’s ‘Motivation Level’ is scored at the extreme and represents a distinctive feature of his

profile. As outlined in Sections 3.4 and 4.3.1, scores for motivational level are established in

relation to a study by Ayers (2006). In comparison with these benchmarks, M1 can be described

as possessing an obsessive or compulsive need to play guitar. In his words, “there’s actually a

fire…I’m sort of driven...I must do it…and I don’t know what that is”.

M1 seems to have developed this motivation at a young age (during adolescence) and his level

of motivation appears to have grown continuously since then. For instance, he believes that he

is “still finding different things and...feel(s)…(he has) got a grip on it”. He recognises that it has

“taken this long” but that he is “probably more enthusiastic now than ever”.

Chapter 4: Results


Type of knowing

M1 has, throughout his entire life, been developing the practical skills needed to compose

music, improvise creatively and produce pieces of excellence (Knowledge About). In addition to

this, M1 has a clear appreciation (Understanding) of what is involved in being a successful

musician and can articulate this understanding to others. For instance, he talks to “young blokes

coming through” and encourages them to “hang onto…(their) day job”. He tries to help them

understand what creates “tired miserable old muso(s)” playing music they don’t like as a job and

compares them to those who are “free”.

Behavioural preference (personality)

Appendix 10 provides a detailed overview of the OST conceptualisation of ‘Behavioural

Preference (Personality)’ and this conceptualisation has been reflected in the variables identified

in Table 2 and Chart 1 above. M1 indicates that he has a strong preference for taking direction

from internal rather than external sources (Behavioural SO). For instance, he chose “not to give

myself (himself) to bands” because he “had something else in mind and that was, you know, my

vision”. In addition, M1 wanted to “find his own voice” and develop his own music reflecting

his “personality” even though his music is “not mainstream enough, and there’s not enough

money in it for people to do it”.

There are few indications of M1 attempting to influence the world around him (Behavioural IE).

Despite the fertile musical context he lives and works within, M1’s attempts to influence his

environment appear limited to recognising that the world was “not waiting for the next acoustic

guitarist”, deciding that he “had to make…(his) own circuit a little” and occasionally attending

breakfast television and radio programs. Reflecting on the latter, he feels that “shows like Bert

Newton were great, you know morning shows…Ray Martin and Kerry Anne Kennelly…(and)

airplay on ABC National”, however his efforts to use these shows as a platform for his career

are confined to him just going on them “when we go on tour and talk on the radio”.

Much of M1’s success does not appear to be related to the deliberate making or taking of

opportunities. M1 regards himself as “lucky...(he has) played at concert venues….and theatres”

and that he has been able to play “exactly what (he) wanted to play”. He sees himself as

fortunate that young people are rediscovering musical styles such as his, but feels helpless and

unable to influence, or take advantage of, new digital technologies and changes in operation of

entertainment venues. For instance, M1 believes that his music “can’t compete with the new

mobile phone with ten screens on it...pubs will be gone now because of poker machines”. M1’s

‘Internalizing’ behavioural preference is further illustrated by his “shyness...few friends” and his

contentment with “control(ing) the things (he) can”.

Chapter 4: Results


M1’s combined personality profile therefore lies in the extreme of the ‘Subjectivizing-

Internalizing’ quadrant of the OST personality space (see Appendix 10). The picture which

emerges is of a man who is highly disinterested in influencing the world around him, whilst also

being strongly compelled to pursue his own dreams in his own way.

Mode of learning

M1 learned to play the guitar by “going to pubs and seeing other players doing something”. He

appears to be frustrated by students who become proficient in “scales but not…able to play a

song”. M1 expresses a clear preference for learning by ‘Extraction’ as opposed to ‘Abstraction’

(see Appendix 10).

Affects

M1 reports an average level of ‘Positive Affect’ and an above average level of ‘Negative Affect’.

The positive affects M1 experiences include enthusiasm, joy, excitement and confidence and, as

he recalled, “it’s only the last few years it’s really all congealed…you walk onto stage with your

chest out a bit more you know...it’s an air of arrogance I guess”. All of the positive affects

expressed by M1 relate to his music; he does not express positive affect in relation to any other

aspect of his life.

M1 also describes feelings of “anger”, “angst”, “aggression”, “edginess” and “irritation” with

the world around him. He appears to be naturally pessimistic, and negative affects seem to have

be present throughout his career. In keeping with his pessimism, M1 lamented that “the good

old days won’t come back”.

Health

M1 appears to be in good ‘Physical Health’ and despite experiencing some illnesses, describes

himself as “pretty robust”. In contrast, M1 scores below average on the scale ‘Mental health’. He

recognises that his life does not conform to what is typically considered “a normal balanced life”

and is envious of the contentment that others experience. Whilst M1 loves playing the guitar, he

recognises that his compulsion for playing guitar, his solo career, and his desire to pursue his

own ideas, may mean that he will “always have a level of discontent”.

Chapter 4: Results


4.3.2.4 Characteristics of the organisation

As discussed in Sections 2.13.4 and 4.3.1, OST uses the ‘system-in-environment’ as the unit of

analysis. In the case of M1, the system incorporates M1 (the person), and ‘M1 Music’ (the

organisation, which is comprised of his wife and some technology). Section 4.3.2.3 discussed the

pattern of person based characteristics. In contrast, Chart 2 below illustrates the pattern of

organisation based characteristics that have contributed to M1 becoming recognised as an

acoustic guitar virtuoso. Using the same method outlined in Section 4.3.2.3, Chart 2 provides a

graphical representation of the scores ‘M1 Music’ received on each variable outlined in Table 2.

CHART 2: PROFILE OF M1: THE ORGANISATION


M1 Music, is a successful small-scale music business that operates internationally and therefore

scores at the average level on the scale measuring the ‘Socio-economic status’ (SES) for the

organisation. As is the case with the socio-economic status of the individual (discussed above),

below average scores may systematically influence scores on all other variables. Given that both

M1 and M1 Music score in the average range, there is no need to consider the systemic effect of

this moderator variable on any other variables.

Technology

M1’s enterprise has attained international recognition with only very modest resources.

According to M1, his entire musical ‘Technology’ consists of, a good quality guitar, some basic

Chapter 4: Results


guitar equipment and desktop publishing equipment. Whilst music is produced via the

interaction of a person and an instrument, and therefore can be regarded as a ‘socio-technical’

system (Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a), the attainment of PCP in the music industry seems to

require only relatively simple ‘Technology’. The development of individual skills seems to play a

more critical role.

Skills (organisational capabilities)

M1 Music has provided M1 with access to new skills. Regarding the contribution made by his

wife, M1 explained that “she does my business stuff and manages me”. M1 Music is well

recognised and regarded by expert raters as being an organisation with a set of organisational

capabilities (Hamel & Prahalad, 1999; Turner & Crawford, 1999) which are average. This

combination of skills seems to leverage M1’s expertise as a guitarist, as well as allowing M1

Music to operate on a global stage, produce its own music, and market and brand itself. This is

all achieved with minimal overheads and maximum freedom from musical agents and the media.

Motivators

Chart 2 shows that M1 Music, provides M1 with optimal scores on the first three intrinsic

motivators (Elbow Room, Set Goals/Feedback), Variety) and maximal scores on the second

three (Mutual Support, Social Value/Whole Product, Desirable Future). Explanation of the

intrinsic motivators and the distinction between optimal and maximal scores is provided in

Appendix 10. As a solo musician he can set his own goals, gain direct feedback from his

audiences and determine the degree of musical variety he desires. M1 believes that he is “lucky”,

because he “married a lady who is just fantastic” (Mutual Support). He considers that producing

“real music” is of value and an antidote to some of maladaptions he sees in the world around

him (Social value). In addition to this, as a soloist, he is involved in every aspect of the musical

experience, from practice to performance, to marketing and interaction with the audience

(Variety, Whole Product). M1 and his wife have also ensured that he has built successful career

with a (Desirable Future).

Regarding the presence of other types of motivators, M1’s public recognition and success

(Extrinsic Non-Monetary) suggests that he and his wife are earning an average level of income

(Extrinsic Monetary), although extrinsic reward was never his primary goal. According to M1,

“if money was my drive, I’d be very very wealthy, you know if I’d channelled this, I’d be

wealthy, but only financially”. M1 does, however, acknowledge that the recognition by his

audiences (Extrinsic Non-Monetary) is important to him. He receives this recognition when

Chapter 4: Results


“the music is really good, and they’re not even taking notice, all of a sudden their foot will be

tapping, something happens at the level of the subconscious”.

Organisational structure

M1 discusses the organisational structure of bands that he has played in, watched and been

associated with. Conceptually, the descriptions used by M1 indicate that he believes that most

bands are necessarily informal ‘DP1’ (Design Principle 1) structures (see Appendix 10),

however, he regards his marriage and several bands as ‘DP2’ (Design Principle 2) structures and

he recognises the benefits which flow from this. For instance, M1 argues that most bands are

“definitely a hierarchy” and, in his experience, these ‘DP1’ structures form as a result of the

matching of personalities and instruments. Regarding the dynamics of these groups, he believes

that:

The most exuberant would be the singer usually, not that he can necessarily sing the

best but cause he’s the guy who wants to jump on tables and he’s the rock star…the

second in line is usually the lead guitarist, you’ll get the dour guy playing bass, and the

guy who has no interest in music whatsoever will play drums, and that’s pretty well how

it goes…you get these different personalities, and the bass guitarist isn’t really interested

you know, he gets told what to do by the guitarist.

In contrast, M1 and his wife jointly hold the responsibility for M1 Music. The communication

between M1 and his wife is ‘Peer-Task’ based (Communication) and M1 feels “lucky…(he)

married a lady who is just fantastic and she does my business stuff and manages…(him) and all

that sort of stuff…she knew how it was going to be and she is unbelievable”.

His comments suggest that there are positive group dynamics within M1 Music, and that the

relationship between he and his wife has served to enhance both of their skills (Variety

Increasing).

During his career in the music industry, M1 has observed and experienced ‘DP2’ organisational

structures and makes the observation that “if you look at the Rolling Stones and U2, they’re

guys that grew up together, and they’ve learnt to play their instruments together, so they are real

bands”. He also contrasts the differences in performance and creativity between bands based on

differing organisational structures and argues that:

Chapter 4: Results


You could take Toto as an example, or gun session players…they are not really a band

in the same sense as these other blokes…(they are just a group of individuals), yeah

exactly and someone makes an arrangement and they all execute it perfectly, it’s not like

the rugged old Rolling Stones getting together, they had a band sound…they’re almost

one, as a unit.

Means of learning and change

As seen above, M1 learned to play guitar by watching or ‘Extracting’ information from other

guitarists in pubs, clubs and during jamming sessions, and striving for the benchmarks that

others have set. Based on this data we can say that M1 has learned mainly from his ‘Peer Group’

rather than from ‘Opinion Leaders’.

Means of adaption

In keeping with M1’s ‘Subjectivising’ personality, there is little evidence of any efforts to plan,

either by ‘Optimizing’ or ‘Active Adaptive Planning’. M1 appears to be aware of emerging

trends; however, there is no evidence to show that M1 Music are turning this learning into

action (Meaningful Learning), nor is there any evidence of a particular strategy being employed

(Direct or Indirect). M1 recognises that his guitar playing “can’t compete with the new mobile

phone with ten screens on it”. He can also see that “there are no others really doing” what he

does. There is one documented example of M1 engaging in ‘Problem Solving’ (i.e. “creating his

own circuit”), however, overall, making the future is absent from the record. M1’s life and M1

Music revolves around musical creativity.

4.3.2.5 Pattern of PCP

The pattern producing M1’s PCP appears to include seven characteristics:

1. Opportunity and encouragement to learn the guitar at a young age (i.e. availability

of economic resources and musical stimulus).

2. The emergence of obsessive levels of motivation and development of distinctive

levels of expertise between childhood and early adulthood.

3. Consistency between M1’s strong subjectivizing-internalizing behavioural profile

and the choice of career as a solo acoustic guitarist.

Chapter 4: Results


4. Establishment of a musical career during a rich musical period (i.e. the emergence

of role model guitar virtuosos, talent shows and local radio programs sympathetic

to the development of musical talent).

5. The establishment of an organisation (M1 Music) which provided skills, motivators,

income and opportunities.

6. Pursuit of an endless quest to perfect guitar playing in himself and others.

7. Renewed interest of audiences in authentic forms of music.

4.3.3 Profile of musician #2

4.3.3.1 Overview

Musician #2 (M2) is the bass guitarist for a unique Australian improvisational band (The M2s).

The M2s have released several albums and have played together for over 20 years. M2 formed

the band when he was a teenager, with two of his school friends. They continue to perform in

venues throughout Australia and tour overseas on an intermittent basis. M2 is approximately 40

years of age and lives in Sydney with his partner. He has no children.


M2 grew up in the same historical period as M1. Consequently, several of the environmental

characteristics influencing M2 are similar to that of M1 and are reproduced here for

completeness.

M2 recognises that he was born toward the end of Australia’s ‘golden age’ (Macintyre, 1999;

Attard, 2010; Mclean, 2012), and grew up toward the end of a fertile musical period (Creswell &

Fabinyi, 1999) when new styles of music (McFarlane, 2000) and new cultural values (O’Neill,

2011) were introduced. He believes that he was “lucky to be reasonably well off in a reasonably

well off time in the country’s history”, and that this provided him opportunities to learn and

play music.

M2 also grew up and a time when music acts such as Sherbet, Cold Chisel and Icehouse, the

introduction of music based television programs such as ‘Bandstand’ and ‘Countdown’

(Wilmouth, 1993), the extension of pub and club opening times (the end of the six o’clock swill)

(Dunstan, 1968; Sumerling, 1998), the development of the live music scene in Australian pubs

and clubs (McFarlane, 2000) and the introduction of the Sunbury music festival (Rawlins, 1986),

laid the foundations for the formation of the Australian record industry (McFarlane, 2000),

Chapter 4: Results


growth in the purchase musical instruments and uptake of music lessons by young people

(Creswell & Fabinyi, 1999; McFarlane, 2000) and increased promotion of recorded music (both

popular and local) by independent radio stations such as Triple J in 1972 (Elder & Wales, 1984).

M2 began playing his first amateur performances at his “local RSL club during the early to mid-

1980’s”. During this period, the Australian economy was experiencing a period of stagflation

and record high interest rates (Perkins, 1987; Argy, 1992), however, despite economic

difficulties, the music and record industry continued to grow as television channels such as

MTV appeared and the first globally successful Australian bands emerged.

During the late 1980’s the vibrant live music scene which had existed during the 1960’s and 70’s

began to decline (Rawlins, 1986; Wilmouth, 1993; Creswell & Fabinyi, 1999; McFarlane, 2000).

Nevertheless, the M2’s were fortunate enough to have formed at a time when there was an

“explosion of interest into what we (they) do, particularly with the worldwide interest in trans-

music...dance music”. During the mid-1990’s “the M2’s began to tour overseas and become well

recognised”. The maturing of their career coincided with high mainstream usage of the internet

and digital media (Ryan, 2010; Szoka & Marcus, 2011), globalisation of the economy (Argy,

1992; Cincotta, 1997; Hamel & Prahalad, 1999; Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001; Nordstrom &

Ridderstrale, 2007) use of sophisticated marketing techniques, consumer information overload

and increased rates of social maladaption (Emery, 1999a; Kotler, 2011; Scott, 2011; Szoka &

Marcus, 2011).

During the more recent years of M2’s career, traditional forms of ‘unplugged’ music, ‘solo

music’ and traditional rock and roll music has gained popularity as fans have sought more

authentic forms of musical experience (Littleton, 1994). The M2’s have themselves been

recognised for contributing to this trend and, according to M2, his band have been “changing

the way music is played”.

Summarising the contextual factors influencing M2’s PCP, it appears that M2 was fortunate to

grow up at a time where the economic resources and musical stimuli were sufficient to

encourage M2 to begin playing music. The growth and success of Australian bands during the

1980’s appear to have boosted early success of the M2’s, and the proliferation of increasingly

superficial music in recent years seems to have allowed them to stand out as something unique

and influence the direction of music.

Chapter 4: Results



Chart 3 below shows the pattern or configuration of person based characteristics that have

contributed to M2 becoming recognised as a leading improvisational musician.

CHART 3: PROFILE OF M2: THE PERSON

Interests

M2 scores as having an average number of ‘Interests’. He mainly discusses his interest in music;

however, he is also conscious of spending time with his partner and keeping a balance in life

generally. According to M2, “there are some touring acts that are on the road much of the time”

and he has tried hard to limit his international travel to being “out of the country for probably

two months of the year” in order to “have a reasonable work life balance”.

Breadth of talent and skill

M2 was regarded by expert raters (see Section 3.10) as possessing an above average breadth of

skills (Breadth Learned Skill in Field) as well as an above average breadth of innate musical

talents (Breadth Talent in Field). Whilst there is limited interview data relating to these

characteristics, expert raters believed that M2 would need to draw on a wide range of musical

techniques to play improvised pieces of music.

Chapter 4: Results


Expertise

M2 believes that his musical talent (Expertise Talent in Field) was quite limited at the

commencement of his career. In his words, he “didn’t have a lot of talent...(and) didn’t consider

myself (himself) overly gifted”. Because of this, he believes that his career could have “gone in

any direction”. M2 continued to play in a band, develop his skills as a bass guitarist and is now

credited as being a talented musician (Expertise Learnt in Field).

Ideal seeking

M2 does not regard himself as being “the most ambitious person”; however, ensuring that his

music has integrity is very important to him. He describes his endless quest for musical integrity

(Ideal Seeking) in the following way:

We discovered pretty early on that if the music had integrity, there was no limit to how

far we could go with it, but we had to decide to maintain that integrity because we

could have just suddenly decided right we’ve got this great product, let’s take it to the

world and make ourselves a fortune…we still come back to the absolute basics of when

we first got together and played.

Equally important to M2, is striving to deliver on the commitment he has made to his colleagues

and audiences regarding the integrity of his music. According to M2, “no one’s trying to bullshit

anyone else in the band”. He continually refers “back to the basics which we discovered in those

first couple of rehearsals” and is determined to “never lose sight of that”. He achieves this by

“being pretty honest with…(himself)” and continually listening “to the audience”.

M2 also strives to encourage the growth and development of others (Nurturance), to create

outcomes that are fitting for people (Humanity), and produce music which resonates with

people (Beauty). He describes the ideal of ‘Nurturance’ as analogous to:

Starting a fire when you get sparks blow and you get a little flame. If you blow too hard

you blow it out, but if you keep nurturing it, it can turn into something really

impressive and that’s what we’ve been doing for 21 years is nurturing that flame and

not blowing too hard so it goes out.

Regarding the ideal of ‘Humanity’, M2 is very clear on the importance of quality of life. He

believes that it is more important to pursue “a modest living expressing…creativity, than having

Chapter 4: Results


all the money in the world”. Similarly, he regards the creativity of “people…who are very

successful in business” as being “slightly tarnished because it’s all with the goal of making

money”.

Finally, M2 describes his endless quest for “pure and simple artistic expression” and creating

beautiful pieces of music (Beauty). In his view, this process requires the artist to “tune into

what’s good and beautiful in the world” and lucky individuals like him are able to “make a living

out of surrounding yourself with beauty”.

Purposefulness

Whilst M2 may not be overly ambitious, he is clearly willing to work hard to be successful as a

musician (Purposeful). According to M2, “it’s just a question of seeding an idea and being pretty

determined with it and making the most of whatever talents you do (have)”. He is also willing to

“work very hard at something…(he) want(s) to pursue rather than having to work hard at just

paying the rent”.

Motivational level

M2 scores four out of five on the scale measuring ‘Motivation Level’, indicating that M2 is

‘Dedicated’ but not ‘Obsessed’ or ‘Compelled’ to play music. He talks of having a “strong work

ethic”, however:

(When he) first got into music it was more because…(he) couldn’t think of anything

else to do, it wasn’t because…(he) had a passion about music…(he) was your typical

monosyllabic teenager you know, nothing excited…(him) very much…the passion has

to be there, but that can come gradually.

It is clear therefore that his motivation, despite being relatively low during his youth, has

increased over the course of time.

Type of knowing

After a 21 year career in the music industry, it is apparent that M2 has the knowledge and skills

to create music and earn a living from it (Knowledge About). In addition to this, he has the

ability to discuss in depth the influences that have shaped his success and creativity. Reflecting

on his career, M2 believes that “there have been some definite driving forces, but at the

Chapter 4: Results


time…(he) wasn’t aware of them”. Specifically he discusses the importance of not pursuing

extrinsic rewards (Understanding). He recognises that long term success in the music industry

does not occur when musicians believe “right, we’ve got this great product, let’s take it to the

world and make ourselves a fortune”. In contrast, he views intrinsic motivation and the pursuit

of ‘Ideals’ as being the important factors contributing toward PCP. As a result, the M2’s “still

come back to the absolute basics of when we first got together and played”.


Scores on the scale measuring ‘Behavioural Preference’ suggest that M2 is a ‘Subjectivizer-

Internalizer’. He does not feel constrained or influenced by the world around him

(Subjectivizing). For instance, at times he feels comfortable to “goof off and take…(his) eye off

the ball” and recognises that this is behaviour which “in the pressure cooker world of high

finance or something would be a sackable offence”. He also recognises that the older he gets,

the more he sees “life as a question” and observes that creative people like himself “never stop

questioning things” and pursuing their own ideas.

Whilst M2 took the initial steps to establish the M2’s, he shows little interest in changing the

world around him (Internalizing). He hopes to give “the audience a fresh way of seeing things”,

however he recognises that this is confined to small scale creativity (i.e. improvisation) and that

he is not proactive with respect to creative works which are more substantial in their scope.

Furthermore, he describes his personal philosophy as M2’s “seeding opportunities”, and “if an

opportunity comes along into our lap, I try and make sure that we make the most of it…of what

comes our way”, however he is also clear that he is “not so aggressive about the band that…(he

is) out there trying to create opportunities”.

Taken together, M2’s willingness to take risks when playing and improvising, and his reluctance

to influence the music world more generally, fit with his statement: “I’m a great lover of

certainty…when you have found something that works, you nurture or cultivate it and don’t

fundamentally change it. You allow it to grow in its own way”.

M2’s preference for ‘Subjectivizing’ is further illustrated by the degree to which he regards ‘luck’

as being a significant contributing factor toward his success. M2 feels lucky “to be reasonably

well off in a reasonably well off time in the country’s history”. He feels “lucky to have made a

living out of it”. He also feels lucky that, shortly after the band got together there was “this

explosion of interest into what we do”. According to M2, “there were definitely elements of

luck involved, they say you make your own luck…we’ve been lucky that enough of it has come

our way to get where we are”. He does however recognise that there is more to his success than

Chapter 4: Results


simply luck. In response to the proposition that PCP arises from a ‘perfect storm’ or

coincidence of many factors, M2 thinks that

The list is endless if you really want to consider how many elements there really are,

there has to be a determination, there has to be a compatibility, there have to be certain

opportunities and there has to be an ability to look forward from those opportunities to

others.

Mode of learning

There is little data on which to assess M2’s mode of learning; however, he does say “just

develop a bullshit detector”, indicating that he is more inclined to learn from ‘Extraction’ than

‘Abstraction’.

Affects

M2 scores in the above average range on the scale measuring ‘Positive Affects’ and appears to

be very positive about his life. For instance, M2 said, “every day I’m grateful that I ended up

being a musician because I basically spend my waking hours dealing with creative expression”.

In addition to this, he describes feelings of excitement, fascination, gratitude, enrichment, joy,

love, pleasure and satisfaction in both his work and home life. Reflecting on his music, M2 said,

“the older I get the more I love it and I’ve already enjoyed it a lot when I was younger…it

brings me immense pleasure and satisfaction”. Regarding the relationship with his partner, he

also feels that he has “an extremely important partner...who is…inspirational” and hopes that he

is “inspirational to her”.

There is minimal ‘Negative Affect’ in M2’s life. Consistent with someone expressing an above

average level of positive feeling, he scores in the lowest range.

Mental health

According to M2, “playing music all day is all the therapy…i need” to keep going and to “sleep

straight in bed at night”. Taken together with his above average ‘Positive Affect’, M2 is scored

as being in the above average range in terms of ‘Positive Mental Health’.

Chapter 4: Results



Chart 4 below provides a graphical representation of the pattern of organisation based

characteristics that have contributed to M2’s PCP.

CHART 4: PROFILE OF M2: THE ORGANISATION


The M2’s have a relatively successful twenty year international career in music and are therefore

scored as average on the variable ‘Socio-economic status’ (SES).

Technology

Whist there is limited interview data available on which to assess this variable, expert

independent raters (using their knowledge of the band and publically available information)

indicate that the music instruments used by The M2’s represents an average level of

‘Technology’.


The M2’s are scored as being highly skilled improvisational musicians who have earned the

respect of their peers and audiences in general. Consistent with this score, M2 makes the

Chapter 4: Results


observation that the band have greatly improved their skills and “have had the ability to take it

way beyond that initial spark”.

Motivators

Chart 4 shows that the organisational structure of the M2’s, provides them with optimal-

maximal scores on all of the six intrinsic motivators (see Appendix 10).

Band members make their own decisions (Elbow Room), set challenges for themselves (Set

Goals) and receive ‘Feedback’ from each other and their audiences (Feedback) and as a result

derive “enormous satisfaction from hearing people from all over the world say…you’re actually

changing the way music is played”. Being an improvisational band, with a high level of loyalty to

one another (Mutual Support and Respect), each member has ample freedom to experiment

(Variety). The members of the band see the (Social Value) of their work and believe they are

“bringing enormous pleasure and satisfaction to people”. They also see all aspects of their music

from conception to performance and the resulting reaction from the audience (Whole Product).

Together, The M2’s have carved out their own career path (Desirable Future).

The M2’s score in the average range for ‘Extrinsic Monetary’ motivation and in the above

average range for ‘Extrinsic Non-Monetary’ motivation. As discussed above, they have attained

at least an average level of ‘Socio-economic Status’ following their twenty one years of practice

and playing, and are now reaping the rewards in terms of enjoyment and public recognition. For

instance, according to M2, the band can “walk into a room on the other side of the world…just

set up and play and…don’t have to even win the crowd over because there is enough buzz and

there are enough people who have heard the buzz”. Often, M2 feels as though they are

“preaching to the converted” when they play to foreign audiences.

Communication and group dynamics

The organisational structure of the M2’s allows them to communicate as ‘Peers’, and have a

productive and task-focused group dynamic (Creative Working Mode). In discussing the

‘Creative Working Mode’ of the group, M2 regards their performances as “basically a three way

conversation in front of an audience” where the audience experience “a product and a process

simultaneously”. Moreover, M2 believes that “people like the music…but they also

enjoy…watching the workings of a band…(with) such simple elements…just three musicians

with an even say”.

Chapter 4: Results



The M2’s are a cohesive unit of people who are deeply committed to one another and who

jointly hold the responsibility for coordinating and controlling their own work. The band is a

clear example of a ‘Design Principle 2’ organisational structure (DP2). Describing the way the

band operates on stage, M2 explains that:

The ground rules are that we wait on stage until someone has a good idea, the other

rule is that it is always one person who starts…good idea or a bad idea …that just gave

us direction for each piece of music. And if you didn’t like what the person was doing,

then it was your responsibility to turn the ship around in an artful way and it would be

like thank you, we needed an idea and you’ve come up with a beauty so let’s run with

that.

The ‘DP2’ structure of the group is further illustrated by the agreed ground rules that The M2’s

have in place regarding their economic arrangements. According to M2, “we’ve always had an

ethos of investing in the group which wasn’t always…now we reinvest in the band all the time”.


The key influencers in M2’s life have been his band mates and his partner. He does not mention

any parent, teacher or mentor as having a significant role in his career, but does believe that he

has:

Been enormously influenced over the years by (the drummer) and (guitarist)…as

musicians and human beings they’re really unique and so I hope that they see me the

same way because we’ve been together for twenty one years.

Clearly the means of change and learning for M2 have been via peer relationships (Peer-Group):

he places no value on ‘Asymmetrical’ relationships.

Planning

Early in their career, The M2’s established a framework which assisted in their musical creation.

Whilst this framework has not enabled the band to actively influence their environment as such,

it has allowed them to adapt during their career. Consequently, The M2’s are regarded as using

‘Active Adaptive Planning’. M2 describes their planning in the following way:

Chapter 4: Results


I think we’ve been able to grow up together as an ensemble...the world has changed

and music has changed…all we really did was built a framework in the early days which

still stands...anything which falls into that framework is something we…use...(regardless

of whether this may be) a new musical idea or a change in the way the world worked.

There is no evidence of any other form of planning, strategy or means of adaption used by the

M2’s.


The pattern producing M2’s PCP appears to include six characteristics:

1. Opportunity to learn the bass guitar at a relatively young age (i.e. availability of

economic resources and musical stimulus).

2. The establishment of a band based on a DP2 structure during his teenage years.

This DP2 structure appears to play a key role in influencing and supporting M2, as

well as in developing his skills, motivation and ideal seeking.

3. Establishment of a career in music at the same time that a new music trends

emerged.

4. Consistency between M2’s strong Subjectivizing-Internalizing behavioural profile

and the choice of career as improvising bass player in a group striving for beauty

and integrity in their music.

5. Gradual development of motivation and positive affect.

6. Renewed interest of audiences in authentic forms of music.

4.3.4 Profile of designer #1

4.3.4.1 Overview

Designer #1 (D1) is a globally renowned multi award winning graphic designer who is founder

and CEO of the Australian based design and marketing firm ‘D1 Design’. D1 has worked with

some of the largest and most recognisable brands in the world including Nokia, Sydney Dance

Company, and Macquarie Bank. D1 Design is located in Sydney and has approximately 40

employees.

D1 was born in the United Kingdom and moved to Canada for the main part of his youth. He

has since lived and worked in many countries, is now in his early forties and is happily married

Chapter 4: Results


with young children. He continues to be a high profile figure in the world of design and travels

regularly as a guest speaker and lecturer on design and design related topics.


D1 was born during the late-1960’s, at a time when ‘counter culture’ was at its most influential

(O’Neill, 2011). During this period, the field of design gained initial acceptance in the business

arena (Meggs, 1983; Drucker & McVarish, 2009). The Bauhaus and the Ulm School had left an

important legacy, and the ‘good design’ philosophy of the Braun Company was also beginning

to influence popular opinion (Burdek, 2001).

By the time D1 was attending art college (during the 1980’s), design based subjects were

increasing in popularity and sophistication and were increasingly influenced by computing

technologies (Burdek, 2001; Gorman, 2001). In addition to this, the integration of design,

marketing and manufacture, meant that the demand to employ designers oriented toward

practical application was increasing (Bruce, 2002; Martin, 2009). The broader field of design was

also being heavily influenced by the most extreme elements of the postmodernism movement

during this period (Burdek, 2001).

As D1 commenced his working career (circa mid-late 1980’s), industrial design became a central

pillar of business success (Gorman, 2001; Bruce, 2002). The global economy was transitioning

from the information age to the service age, the division between production and consumption

became blurred and terms such as ‘prosumption’ and ‘mass customisation’ were used to describe

modern day economic processes (Pine II, 1992; Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). Advertising

sophistication also increased to accommodate growth in consumer power and choice (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2011). Consequently, notwithstanding the economic turmoil which followed ‘Black

Monday’ on Wall Street during 1987 (Shiller, 1989; Robert, 1990), many large design firms such

as Pentagram (the organisation at which D1 secured his first job) became well established.

D1 attained the position of senior partner in a large international design firm during the 1990’s

(aged 27 years). Despite the strong negative reaction toward Post-Modernism (i.e. claims of a

lack of substance), PhD qualifications in design became available, computer aided design (CAD)

grew in popularity and sophistication, and the internet emerged as a mainstream business tool

during the 1990’s (Burdek, 2001; Gorman, 2001). D1 subsequently established his own design

firm (D1 Design) as techniques such as ‘branding’, ‘user led design’, ‘interface design’, ‘strategic

design’ and ‘imagineering’ grew in popularity (Peters, 2006; Moggridge, 2007). During this

period, concepts such as ‘brand equity’ were also being used to assess the stock market valuation

of companies (Peters, 2006; Nordstrom & Ridderstrale, 2007).

Chapter 4: Results


Since 2000, D1 design continued to grow and expand its reputation. This growth occurred

against a backdrop of developments in the usage of the internet, increased availability of global

travel, transition away from the ‘service economy’ to the ‘experience economy’ (Pine II &

Gilmore, 1999), growth in the number of global marketing and advertising organisations (Peters,

2006; Nordstrom & Ridderstrale, 2007), proliferation in the range of software based design tools

(Gorman, 2001; Bruce, 2002; Scott, 2011), the introduction of a new generation of global design

and innovation consultancies (such as IDEO and What If) (Allan, Kingdon, Murrin & Rudkin,

2002; Brown, 2009) and increased saturation of consumers with marketing and design

information (Peters, 2006; Nordstrom & Ridderstrale, 2007).

D1 believes that many of these trends have concerning implications for human beings,

explaining that:

The world is now in a crisis, because of the environment and everything else. We’re all

questioning what makes us happy now, what is it that we should be doing, how far have

we strayed from our natural born intent…it’s a bizarre surreal situations, it’s no wonder

we’ve lost connection with ourselves and our earth…Obesity is because we have too

much, it’s too easy, we don’t have to make any effort to get a meal, and then when we

get it we don’t value it.


Chart 5 below shows the pattern of person based characteristics that have contributed to D1

becoming recognised as a leading designer.

CHART 5: PROFILE OF D1: THE PERSON

Chapter 4: Results


Goals and interests

D1’s discussion is confined to his work and therefore scores as below average on the number of

lifelong pursuits (Goals). D1 does appear to be interested in a number of topics relating to his

children and the future of humanity. He therefore scores in the above average range measuring

the number of ‘Interests’.

Breadth of skill

From an early age, D1 began developing his skills in design related work and wanted “to do all

of it” because he believes that “graphic design is not one particular thing…there are lots of

different things…and it all crosses over”. Adopting this approach to his design work has

allowed D1 to see the ‘whole product’ of his work, and scores in the above average range in

terms of the ‘Breadth of Learned Skills’ he possesses in his field.

In contrast, D1 scores in the below average range for (Breadth of Learned Skill Not in Field)

because he was “really bad a school, very bad at maths, very bad at the academic side of things”,

and did not make reference to any other aptitudes.

Expertise

D1 regards design as an innate ability and that he is gifted in this area (Expertise Talent in Field).

He believes that “some people can apparently draw and others…(can’t)”. Furthermore, he

regards design as “something…you feel inside. It has no science to it; there is no mathematics,

it’s something which you feel”.

In addition to his natural talent, D1 scores as being ‘Distinctively Competent’ on the scale

measuring ‘Expertise Learned in Field’, and demonstrated his expertise by being able to do

“every single job that has ever come our way”. In addition, he has won several awards which

testify to his level of expertise.

D1 recognises that he is “running a successful business” and that he had to learn several skills to

do this including how to delegate, manage people and engage customers. D1 therefore scores in

the above average range for ‘Expertise Learned Not in Field’ in recognition of his non design

related skills.

Chapter 4: Results


Ideal seeking

D1 appears to be aware of his ‘Ideal Seeking’. He believes that he has “strong ideals” and talks

of “making a difference”. He also strives to ensure that everything he does is “true and one

hundred percent” and is committed toward ensuring that his business does not become “just a

big money making machine”. According to D1, “making things better is really what it’s about”

and he does not “want to have any barriers”, or to “have a ceiling”, in his efforts to achieve this.

He does not “accept the term ‘it’s not possible’” and prefers to “think everything is possible”.

D1 appears to pursue three (Nurturance, Humanity and Beauty) of the four possible ideals. In

every aspect of his life, he strives to “work with everyone trying to help them grow as people”.

This is evident in his dealings with staff, customers and his family (Nurturance). D1 has a strong

desire to create outcomes which are fit for people (Humanity) and finds manipulative marketing

abhorrent. He regards such practices as “tricking people into thinking they need something” and

hopes that his “stuff isn’t” tricking people. Instead, D1 prefers to make people’s lives better by

empowering them. He regards design as “a phenomenal business to be in” because it helps

people and “makes a difference”. In addition, he sees “the value in creating something that is

compelling and something that people want…so it’s tailored…bespoke to that one off use”. D1

therefore has no interest in producing creative outcomes for their own sake; however, this does

not exclude him from the pursuit of ‘Beauty’. As discussed above, he is concerned that people

have lost their connection to each other and the land they live on. He does not want his children

to grow up like that and would prefer that his children “play all the time” He does not “want to

bash that out of them and make them do it neater or tidier” and would prefer “them making

messes and celebrating those messes”.

Purposefulness

D1 makes several statements that attest to his ‘Purposefulness’. According to D1, “the objective

is to perform at the max.” He is very interested in being successful and clearly remembers

significant events contributing toward his success. For instance, early in his career he worked on

a project which he “just believed…and had that tingly feeling this is a job…(was) going to be

really, really important to start…(his) career”. D1 is not however interested in pursuing success

at the expense of other people. Instead, he holds the view that “never knocking anything back

creates momentum…any knock back, any being bad to anybody, is going to have a

comeback…so I continually try to fulfil that promise or obligation”.

Chapter 4: Results


Motivational level

D1 has always been highly motivated; however, his scores and statements suggest he is best

described as being ‘Dedicated’ rather than ‘Obsessed’ or ‘Compelled’. According to D1, he loves

design and wants “to do all of it”. His dedication to design is however best illustrated by the

following statement:

I mean its long hours, and…there have been times, not lately, but in the past when

we’ve been in the studio for like four days and never leave, you know working on big

projects and stuff…it’s a 24 hour thing that’s just in my mind…I love it so to try to put

it in a box, or put it in a certain period of time…it doesn’t feel right.

He is particularly driven to create new possibilities for people and in his view has “worked really

hard” and will “push and push and push” to “be positive and get things done” for people. He

reiterates that “anything is possible” but recognises that this is also “about determination, about

perseverance…about really wanting to”.

D1 is also highly motivated to produce high quality work and regards himself as “trying really

hard to do good things and…a perfectionist trying to get things right”. He wants “to be the

best…at every single one” of his design projects and believes that if he had “decided…to be a

musician, then…because of…(his) nature…(he would) be a really good musician”. Similarly if

he “was a builder…(he) would want to be a good builder”.

Type of knowing

As outlined above, D1 knows how to create designs, run a successful business (Knowledge

About) and understand why clients are satisfied or not satisfied (Understanding). He believes it

is important to “really get your head around the problem, really listen to the brief, listen to the

client, really understand what their needs are, understand what they’re about, where they want to

go, and where they want to position themselves”.

D1 also has a clear (Understanding) of why he has been successful, explaining that he can “look

at the whole history of 15 years of what job started what, what jobs we’re doing today, where

that came from and how that came through the whole chain of events”.

Chapter 4: Results



D1’s scores indicate that he has the behavioural preference of a ‘Subjectivizer-Externalizer’. It is

clear that he lives by his own ideas and ideals, and is not easily influenced by the opinions of

others (Behavioural SO). According to D1, he does not “live to someone else’s agenda and

lifestyle”, and his advice is to “be true to yourself, find what makes you happy, find what

motivates you”. Furthermore, he believes that “the mistake people make, is that they put their

energy into what they think other people want them to do and not what they want, what they

feel in their hearts is right”.

On several occasions, D1 indicates that he wants to influence his environment and create

business opportunities (Behavioural IE). For instance, he holds the view that “the people that

are most successful in this industry are people that have made the most of opportunities that

they’ve had”. Moreover, he recognises that one opportunity often leads to another. Reflecting

upon one of his first projects, he has developed the view that “even though it hardly had any

money, it then attracted another job, and that one attracted another job. There was a domino

effect all the way through to today”.

D1’s career as a successful designer commenced with him making opportunities and influencing

his environment. When he was 27 years of age as an associate partner of a large design firm, he

was concerned that “no one knew…(he) existed”. D1 subsequently decided, “what I’ve got to

do, is leave, I’ll show them…I’ll…create some kind of name for myself”. Shortly after starting

his own company he created more opportunities which, in hindsight, seems to have been an

important catalyst in kick-starting his career. In D1’s words, “one of the jobs I first did…was a

magazine called Big Magazine…and as a result I won awards around the world and a huge

amount of press. Right away it started to build a reputation”. As he continued to influence the

environment he quickly became a globally recognised designer and this resulted in him “meeting

with the CEO of Nokia” and there have been no shortage of requests for his services since.

Today he receives “emails from all over the world every day from people wanting

jobs…wanting…lectures or…to feature in magazines…it just doesn’t stop”.

D1 continues to make and take opportunities to influence his environment. Most recently he

has “employed a PR company for specific targeting of the general press to get beyond being all

about design”. He views this initiative as creating “more opportunities, or help(ing to) create

more opportunities”.

Chapter 4: Results


Mode of learning

D1 places a high value on observing the world around him and picking up ideas from others

(Extract). According to D1, “it’s really critical to be observant….continually be inquisitive, look

at things...don’t have a blinkered approach to life...be open and soak up stuff”. There is little

evidence upon which to assess his preference for learning via ‘Abstraction’.

Affects

D1 scores in the above average range for ‘Positive Affect’ and in the average range for ‘Negative

Affect’. From a young age he has felt good about design, remembering that he “was excited

about (it)”. Today he is in an enviable position; his work and workplace are “like a playground…

there’s hundreds of jobs going on...it’s really cool…(staff) really enjoy the process…(and) have

fun everyday”.

It appears, however, that D1’s high motivation and desire to get things right cause him to worry

and become frustrated (Negative Affect). During his first job he describes “thinking, Christ,

where do I get the work from” He also worried that other people were “trying to sabotage

(him)…by not helping (him)”, and remembers feeling that there was “something seriously

wrong”.

D1 also experienced ‘Negative Affects’ during the start-up of his own business. He recognises

that in these early stages of his business career, “when a client didn’t like what I did I just would

sulk and feel and be angry and defensive you know”. Even today, he continues to place pressure

on himself to live up to certain standards. He feels as though “it’s not easy to come up with

ideas all the time”, and often it is “really, really hard…sometimes you feel like you haven’t really

fulfilled your expectations…you don’t always feel like you have got it right”.

Health

D1 scores in the average range for ‘Physical’ and ‘Mental Health’, despite feeling “totally out of

shape”. He recognises the pressures that come with running a business and makes the

observation that “it takes its toll...its stressful”. Many of his friends, family and professional

colleagues also say “you should work 9-5 and all that kind of stuff”.

Chapter 4: Results


4.3.4.4 Characteristics of the system

Chart 6 below shows the pattern of organisation based characteristics that have contributed to

D1 becoming recognised as a leading designer.

CHART 6: PROFILE OF D1: THE ORGANISATION


Being an internationally successful design company (with an owner who admits to having a

greater degree of business acumen than most designers) D1 Design scores in the above average

range for socio-economic status (SES).

Motivators

D1 Design scores at the optimal/maximal level on all ‘Intrinsic’ and ‘Extrinsic Motivators’. D1

works with his designers as a group and also owns the business, so he, and they, have plenty of

autonomy (Elbow Room). D1 also appears stimulated and excited by being “constantly

challenged” and according to D1 he does not “know who’s going to phone up...who’s going to

email...or walk in the door...but when they do it’s like wow that’s cool...let’s do that and that

shopping centre or piece of packaging or whatever” (Set Goals).

Chapter 4: Results


As his organization works on projects as a group, D1 is constantly getting ‘Feedback’ on his

ideas. The project nature of the work as well as the “interesting combination (of) being a CEO

and a creative director”, provide him and his people with optimal levels of ‘Variety’ and an

ability to see the ‘Whole Product’ of their work. Adding to the variety he experiences, D1’s

“studio does everything…not one particular thing...lots of different things... (that) all cross

over”. D1 sees his work as helping people and this gives him a sense of ‘Social Value’. He also

receives optimal scores on the scale measuring ‘Mutual Support and Respect’ because his

relationships with customers and staff are “a collaboration” where respecting and listening to

others is of “massively important value”. As a consequence, “most of (his) life....social life is

based around work; clients become friends, or staff etcetera” and these friendships provide him

with social and intellectual support both inside and outside of work.

D1 Design is a highly successful and continually expanding business which has received fame,

recognition and awards. As a result, it scores in the above average range for ‘Extrinsic Monetary’

and ‘Extrinsic Non-Monetary’ motivators.


D1 Design operates using ‘Peer-Task’ based communication and there is a high degree of

collaboration between D1 and his staff. According to D1, the approach taken with clients is also

“a very honest, simple form of communication…It’s a collaboration, it’s not us and the

client…(they) are dedicated to collaborating with us, as much as we are with them to getting a

great outcome...that’s where the most successful performance happens”.

Group dynamics

D1 has observed the destructive effect of ‘Fight/Flight’ group dynamics. During his time as

partner in a multinational design firm he found that “there was not as much collaboration as

what we’d do (at D1 Design)”, and viewed this approach as being “fairly arrogant and actually

narrow minded”. Since then, he has observed ‘Fight/Flight’ dynamics and its destructive effects

on his peers in the industry and their customers. According to D1, “so many designers at the

highest level...hate clients and they go clients are arseholes and clients never understand”.

D1 has worked hard to avoid this type of dynamic occurring within D1 Design and is constantly

“celebrating our team and what we do...praising everybody for all the parts that they put in

place”. As a result, D1 Design operates using a ‘Creative Working Mode’, where work tasks;

“sort of snowball…backwards and forwards”.

Chapter 4: Results



D1 has experienced ‘Design Principle 1’ (DP1) organisational structures and recognises the

dysfunctional outcomes that they produce. He describes these structures as creating “a very

competitive environment” where individuals do not share their work or help each other.

Without realising there are alternatives, D1 initially attempted to operate D1 Design using a

‘DP1’ structure, however he soon recognised problems typically associated with such structures.

For instance, as the organisation grew he experienced difficulties delegating and remembers

thinking:

I need an assistant and then not being able to actually delegate to that person...(or) how

to tell a person to help me.... for quite a few years it was like that. I’d get more and

more assistants, and I’d be working even harder because of that kind of lack of

understanding of how to pass, handover stuff for other people to do.

He also discovered additional difficulties associated with the management of ‘DP1’ structures,

including limitations that these structures place on organisational performance. Whilst D1

recognises that the difficulties associated with ‘DP1’ structures are “quite a big issue for a lot of

people” he believes many entrepreneurs share a concern about “becom(ing) irrelevant” or “a

manager” who doesn’t do the work. Regarding the management of D1 Design, he believes that

it has been important for him to “be in control of the destiny of the business, or how the

business is presented and how the business is sold”. Despite being “personally across

everything” he does however recognise that “it gets to the point actually where it’s a hell of a lot,

and something has to give”.

It is clear from these statements that D1 Design is highly controlled and there is no evidence of

‘Laissez-Faire’, which is defined in Appendix 10 as being a situation where there are no agreed

goals, organisational structure or leadership.

D1 demonstrates that he knows the value of ‘DP2’ organisational structures; however, there is

no evidence that he consciously understands the design principles or how to modify them. His

efforts to realise the benefits of ‘DP2’ include:

(Getting) together in a group, designers that are relevant and projects managers are part

of that team, the writers and strategists...brainstorm the brief...tell everybody what’s

going on, and what we want to achieve, and then...start to explore and

experiment...until we feel that its right.

Chapter 4: Results


D1 does, however, recognise that when a proper ‘DP2’ structure is in place, there is no

requirement for a supervisor, manager or owner to attempt to control the organisation. Under

‘DP2’ structures he explains how “you don’t think about what you are doing, you just do it, over

a period of time you just let go”.

He assumes, however, that ‘DP2’ structures result from “find(ing) good people in the first

place” and as a result has been determined to “only take on people in this business (D1 Design)

who are going to contribute and help things get better, help alleviate the load etcetera”. He also

realizes that it is easy to work as a group (DP2) when the numbers of staff are small, however,

finds it difficult to clearly see how this can be achieved as the size of his organisation grows. For

instance, D1 believes he “can work out how to continually expand” but “(finds it difficult to see

how he can) still maintain our philosophy, still maintain our family thing you know, that’s really,

really important”.

Communication

There is a high degree of ‘Openness’ within D1 Design. As outlined in Appendix 10, ‘Openness’

is one of the four conditions required for effective communication. D1 feels strongly about

there being “no hidden work in our studio” and understands that this differentiates D1 Design

because “other companies have...90% of their work that no one will ever see”.

Means of adaptation

D1 adapts to his environment in several different ways (Meaningful Learning, Problem and

Puzzle Solving). As outlined above, D1 learns by ‘Extracting’ information from the world

around him and puts this ‘Meaningful Learning’ into practice. He sees successful design as being

the balance between novelty and appropriateness (Problem Solving) and is concerned that

“other design companies have a very different approach... (and) want to do some really crazy

stuff...(or) create some beautiful stuff”. In his view, however, good design is about “intelligent

solutions” and he does not “get any stimulation out of making something look nice”.

He also recognises that the environment around him is complex and turbulent. As a result, he

tries to find the best way to adapt to this environment and “to work out what it all is, what is it

that’s caused us to...lose that unique thing (creativity)”(Puzzle Solving).

Chapter 4: Results



The pattern producing D1’s PCP appears to include six characteristics:

1. Growth of the design field and its influence within the business sector.

2. Being highly talented, skilled and motivated to work in the design field.

3. Alignment between D1’s Subjectivizing-Externalizing personality and his decision

to start and market his own design company.

4. D1’s desire to create an organisation that makes a difference, empowers individuals,

helps them grow and creates new possibilities for others.

5. His efforts to establish elements of a DP2 structure which have provided him and

his staff with intrinsic motivators, open peer to peer communication, creative group

dynamics and enhanced individuals skills.

6. D1’s learning from customers and the world around him and his efforts to adapt

via meaningful learning, problem and puzzle solving.

4.3.5 Profile of designer #2

4.3.5.1 Overview

Designer #2 (D2) is the founder of Melbourne based internationally award winning industrial

design, manufacturing and marketing firm ‘D2 Company’. D2 is a regular panellist on television

programs, a sought after judge in the industrial design field and travels internationally to deliver

lectures and keynote speeches on a wide variety of topics relating to industrial design.

D2 was born in Melbourne and has been significantly influenced by his father who continues to

be a successful architect and businessperson. D2 is approximately 50 years of age and is married

with children.


D2 was born during the early 1960’s, and established his company during the 1980’s.

Consequently, D2 grew up and developed his career in a similar historical period as D1.

The period between the 1960’s and 1980’s was an important period of growth for the field of

design (Pirovano, 1991; Burdek, 2001; Gorman, 2001). D2 describes the emergence of

computer aided design (CAD) and the significance of its impact on industrial design during the

1990’s. The ‘innovation economy’ (Pine II & Gilmore, 1999) introduced a new generation

Chapter 4: Results


design and innovation organisations (i.e. ‘IDEO’ and ‘What If’), (Allan et al., 2002; Brown,

2009) and the development of a new generation of desktop design software packages (Burdek,

2001; Gorman, 2001; Ryan, 2010; Szoka & Marcus, 2011) which were of direct relevance the

development of D2’s career. According to D2:

When we started using some packages of software and technology involving 3D surface

modelling and things, it completely changed the look of the products, without a

question, the way in which something is designed and the look reflects the technology

that you use.

Technological developments continued to have a major influence on his work into the new

millennium. Important developments during this period included, the emergence of the internet

as a mainstream business tool (Ryan, 2010; Scott, 2011), the development of interface design,

user led design, the integration of design and marketing (Moggridge, 2007; Ritzer & Jurgenson,

2010), the increased influence of ‘brand equity’ upon stock market valuation (Peters, 2006;

Kapferer, 2012), and the introduction of strategic design, imagineering, rapid prototyping and

sophisticated marketing techniques (Bruce, 2002; Peters, 2006; Martin, 2009; Kotler, 2011).

During the early 2000’s, D2 began to lecture widely and appear on television as a panellist and

judge. His increased profile occurred as usage of the internet, live global television and

affordable international travel became increasingly prevalent (Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001; Ryan,

2010). The emergence of the global economy provided backdrop against which D2’s early career

unfolded.

During the latter part of his career, various sectors of the economy have transitioned from the

service economy to the so called ‘experience economy’ requiring integrated, seamless or ‘end to

end’ offerings (Pine II & Gilmore, 2009). Talent shortages (the so called ‘war for talent’)

(Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001) and the introduction of formal qualifications in

industrial design (up to and including PhD level) (Burdek, 2001) also occurred during this

period. These events have directly influenced the ability of D2 Company to recruit highly skilled

staff, and afforded opportunities for D2 Company’s integrated business model. According to

D2, the ability to provide ‘end to end’ services has contributed to D2 Company’s uniqueness

and served to attract and retain staff who are dissatisfied with the more narrowly focused roles

available in many corporate organisations. In his view, “if you worked for Electrolux as an

industrial designer, you would probably get that closed loop learning as part of a marketing

department…but from a design consultancy perspective it is quite unique”.

Chapter 4: Results



Chart 7 below shows the pattern of person based characteristics that have contributed to D2

becoming recognised as a leading industrial designer.

CHART 7: PROFILE OF D2: THE PERSON

Interests

D2 has a fairly typical range of ‘Interests’ and a degree of balance in his life. He is not solely

focused on his work and does not believe that “the idea of working twelve hours a day...not

seeing the family and wearing that as a badge of honour is a good idea”. In contrast, he “would

like to think there is enough balance in life that... (he) can see the kids and do all that”. Even

with respect to the time that he is “overseas 3 months of the year or 4 months of the year”, he is

conscious that “that’s not a great...work life balance”, and regards it is “a means to an end in a

way”.

Breadth of skills

D2 owns a unique industrial design company and it is clear that the integrated nature of this

company requires that he and his employees have a broad range of skills (Breadth of Skill in

Field). Furthermore, D2 participates in all activities of the business “end to end”.

Chapter 4: Results


Expertise

D2 has an innate ability for drawing and designing aesthetically pleasing objects (Expertise

Talent in Field). Whilst he recognises that “you can teach... (people) to draw...people who don’t

have skills can be taught skills”, he believes that innate ability is important in producing a

successful design career. According to D1:

Unless they have an understanding or a flair or an inherent something, all the teaching

in the world won’t help them design beautiful products…you have to have a particular

build or make up or something…to provide an extra something that gets you over the

line I suppose.

In addition to his innate ability, D2 has won awards and is publicly recognised as having a high

level of ‘Expertise Learned in Field’. He is also recognised as possessing strong business and

management skills (Expertise Learned Not in Field).

Ideal seeking

D2 pursues the ideals of ‘Beauty’ and ‘Nurturance’. He refers to ‘Beauty’ in terms of the

“honesty” of products and regards those products which are most beautiful as those that

“are…true to themselves and true to their customers and their followers... they don’t go from

one product and flip around, they’ve got an honesty”. Furthermore, he strives to design simple

and elegant products which are made of good materials because he believes that ‘Beauty’ is:

A mixture of materials, the way people use materials, and simplicity in the sense that

they’re not overcomplicated, and ingenuity because you know things need to have a

level of wonder to them so that, and mystery I suppose.

It is clear that beautiful products bring joy to D2. In particular, he enjoys how:

All of those things (can be) put together in a way that can marvel you and make you

smile…make me feel good about something. If things are obvious or boring or

pedestrian…then that sort of hasn’t done it for me.

D2’s pursuit of ‘Beauty’ must however, be taken in context with the lessons he has learned

regarding the importance of pragmatism. As discussed below, D2’s ‘Behavioural Preference’

Chapter 4: Results


indicates that influencing the environment is important to him and to that extent the pursuit of

‘Beauty’ is not an end in itself.

In addition to the ideal of ‘Beauty’, D2 pursues the ideal of ‘Nurturance’. He has developed an

organisational design that enables people to learn and grow by developing skills in the whole

process of industrial design, from creating to producing to selling. For D2, this provides:

A much broader understanding of the design outcomes, because we’re marketing and

selling and making and taking everything right through to the other end…which

actually gives a lot of the staff a lot more opportunity of an understanding of those

other aspects of design.

Purposeful

D2 has remained focused on building an industrial design business, even during periods where

his livelihood has been quite uncertain (Purposeful). In his view, “there has been a lot of

uncertainty in...(his) career” and it has often been unclear whether certain initiatives were “going

to work or not going to work” or “if his business was “going to be here next week”. He regards

being ‘Purposeful’ and “focus(ing) on it enough to make sure” as the solution to managing

through such situations.

D2 is also very clear about his views on design and discusses the importance of designers having

a sense of ‘Purpose’ and direction in their work. For instance, he believes that:

It is really, really important…to be completely absorbed in the industry…know, buy

good design, think good design, travel and walk into shops and expose themselves to

things they don’t understand…being able to judge and ask why they like something.

Motivational level

D2 scores in the second highest category for ‘Motivation’. He is best described as being

‘Dedicated’ rather than ‘Obsessed’ or ‘Compelled’. He enjoys his design work and feels “lucky

because...(he) absolutely love(s) what...(he) do(es)”. D2 recognises that his success has been due

to hard work over a long period of time and explains that in order to “generate…a body of

work that can then be recognised…a lot of it comes from working hard”. Moreover, he

discusses the importance of high motivation commencing during childhood. Reflecting on the

Chapter 4: Results


degree to which he was immersed in drawing and design during his childhood has led him to

believe that:

Unless they have got that level of passion then they are not really going to hit it. You

know, if you’re going to be a car designer, there are people who have drawn sketches

on their text books when they were in fifth grade, you know they love it and they are

completely (immersed in it) yeah. So you need to have that level of commitment I

think.

Type of knowledge

D2 knows how to design practical products and run a successful industrial design business

(Knowledge About). In addition, D2 recognises why certain design strategies are effective and

others are ineffective (Understanding). He argues that designers require a broad range of life

skills to ensure that their products are regarded as being novel and appropriate in their context

and, furthermore, explains that this type of understanding:

Goes beyond just industrial design…showing an understanding of popular culture and

of related industries and architecture and it’s more a case of understanding…of where

design fits into people’s lives…(it’s more than a set of talents, it’s a broader set of life

skills) yes exactly…unless you have an understanding of that then it’s very hard to

design products that are elite or stand out to the crowd.

D2’s (Understanding) has made it easier for him to quickly assess the merits of various designs

and in his view:

It’s much easier now having been in the industry for a while and having worked with a

number of other designers through the process, it’s much easier to look at a product or

a design or an idea and to make a really simple decision as to whether it will work or

won’t work.


D2’s scores identify him as having a ‘Subjectivizer-Externalizer’ behavioural preference (see

Appendix 10). In keeping with his preference for ‘Subjectivizing’, D2 finds that he gets “bored

really easily…if there is nothing to stimulate...(him) then...(he) find(s) another way of

Chapter 4: Results


approaching things”. The ‘Objectivising’ aspect of his profile seems to help him to make

judgements about the contextual appropriateness of his designs. For instance, he holds the view

that “there is a reality…a limit to how far you can take it before people will look at you with a

quizzical expression and say I don’t get it”. This aspect of his personality has developed

throughout his career and today his approach to design “is tempered with reality”.

D2 scores at the midpoint of the pole measuring ‘Behavioural IE’ (see Section 12.13.10). In

many respects he is an ‘Externalizer’ and is interested in influencing the world around him. In

other respects, he is an ‘Internalizer’. As an ‘Externalizer’, D2 has tried to “convince people that

we had credibility to do, you know what we do”. His efforts to try and influence others are the

result of him “knowing the sort of person that… (he is)”, and he regards himself as being “very

lucky” because of this. For instance, he was quick to pioneer the use of 3D computer modelling

because, “using the modelling technology you could do anything”, however this meant that

“there was a period of probably three to four years where we could design a product but we

couldn’t find anyone to make them because they didn’t have the same technology that we were

using”.

In contrast, D2 has adapted to other environmental changes rather than influencing them

(Internalizing). He explains how his experience and ‘Internalizing’ have:

Given us…a little bit better judgement as to what’s achievable and how we should go

about things, so that we take a lot of the risk out of the creativity…just more a matter

of looking at things from a seasoned perspective where you understand what the

boundaries need to be.

There have also been times where his “constraints are…are self-imposed”. For instance, he has

made efforts to curb his creativity because he has not wanted to “bite off more than we can

chew…which we have done in the past, and that might be conducive to being incredibly

creative...but the problems are that it’s very difficult to execute”.

Mode of learning

As discussed earlier, in relation to ‘Understanding’, D2 learns by observing practical events and

‘Extracting’ knowledge from them. D2 has used this ‘Mode of Learning’ since he was young,

‘Extracting’ information from his observations of popular culture, other industries, architecture

and the role that design plays in people’s lives.

Chapter 4: Results


Affects

D2 scores in the above average range for ‘Positive Affects’ and the average range for ‘Negative

Affects’. He is happy and satisfied that he has achieved his career goals and that his work is a

good match with his interests and behavioural preferences. Accordingly, from a personal

perspective, D2 feels that he “achieved what...(he) set out to achieve and having achieved that,

is...(his) measure of success”. He feels that his happiness comes from “being able to do

something different every day” and is generally positive about his life apart from his tendency to

boredom. For D2, it is therefore important that his:

Career…allows (him) to explore a whole range of different opportunities…if…(he) was

to work in a situation where…(he) was working in a company doing the same thing day

in day out that then…(he) would be a very unhappy person.



D2 becoming recognised as a leading industrial designer.

CHART 8: PROFILE OF D2: THE ORGANISATION

Chapter 4: Results


Socio economic status

D2 Company is a well-established and successful industrial design company employing several

staff and providing a unique offering in the marketplace. D2 Company scores, therefore, in the

above average range for ‘Socio economic Status’ (SES).

Technology

D2 Company is an integrated design, manufacturing and marketing organisation with the

capability to rapidly prototype products. D2 is a pioneer in the use of new design and

manufacturing technology and is keenly aware of its benefits and consequences. For instance, he

describes using “some packages of software and technology involving 3D surface modelling”

and explains that:

There was a period of probably three to four years where we could design a product,

but we couldn’t find anyone to make them because they didn’t have the same

technology that we were using, until everyone sort of caught up, now everyone can.


D2 Company scores in the above average range for its ‘Organisational Capabilities’. According

to D2, it is an organisation containing:

Nearly twenty designers… and all of them have an extra bit in something…it may be

that they are exceptional at CAD or exceptional at illustration work…not all of them

are all-rounders…some of them are, and some of them have more sense of creativity.


D2 has attempted to build an organization where people can be creative; however, D2 Company

is assessed as being a ‘DP1’ organisational structure, typically responsible for restricting

creativity. The business is under the control of D2 and his senior staff and measures are put in

place to ensure the business does not run out of control (Laissez-Faire). For instance, “at the

start of the year we will set an agenda…as to what we need to do for the next 12 months and we

will communicate that through a whole range of methods”. Within this structure, the successful

management of staff is attributed to communication skills and relies upon “really understanding

what some people are like…Definitely communication... skills and getting people to talk about

what they like and what they don’t like.”

Chapter 4: Results


Despite its formal organisational structure being ‘DP1’, D2 Company operates as an informal

‘DP2’ structure (see Appendix 10). The coordination and control of the work is typically

arranged during self-managed, task focused meetings during which team members identify:

What we need to be doing... what we need to achieve, and then it’s really osmosis. It’s

something which spreads through the company where people understand that and that

needs to be done and these people need to be involved.

In D2’s view, the informal ‘DP2’ structure is “a really flat structure and people

understand…what’s expected of them and they work to that”. He finds that staff “pace

themselves and…provide the skills that are needed, and in actual fact when they see that things

aren’t going to happen on time, then they are here twenty four hours”. Characteristically, within

this informal ‘DP2’ structure, the allocation of work and timelines is “not dictated. It really is

where people can come on board and see this is where it’s at and this is what we have got to do

to get it there”.

D2 recognises that in working this way, authority and responsibility flows to individuals who

possess the skills which are needed at different points in time. Whilst “there are people who

have more responsibilities to make sure other people understand the outcome or are reminded

of the timing”, this is made possible because of the reliance of complementary skill sets within

the company. D2 is conscious of the benefits which arise from this informal ‘DP2’ structure and

believes that the organisation “works well where you have people who…have different skills…

and they understand the other peoples…strengths and they work to that”. He can also see the

vibrant social atmosphere which results from this mode of operation, and feels as though he has

“got a great team…they socialise a lot together… everyone’s happy and enjoying what they are

doing, you know we’re not having to hire staff”.

Motivators

As the owner of the company, D2 scores at the optimal/maximal level on all ‘Intrinsic

Motivators’. In addition, it is clear that the integrated nature of D2 Company provides all staff

with the ability to see the ‘Whole Product’. For instance, D2 Company:

Have a much broader understanding of the design outcomes of the design because

we’re marketing and selling and making and taking everything right through to the

other end…(and it) gives a lot of the staff a lot more opportunity of an understanding

of those other aspects of design.

Chapter 4: Results


He values the experience of his staff and encourages them to be innovative (Elbow Room). D2

feels “lucky because we don’t need to dictate to a large extent”. Instead he prefers to “allow…

people to try ideas…go out and do things” and “make a decision and change directions”. D2

recognises the benefits of intrinsically motivated staff and has found that “it’s when people

understand the goal posts…when they’ve set their own agenda really, that’s we have got the

most success”. The staff at D2 Company are therefore able to ‘Set Goals’ and, to a large extent,

the process of setting goals is “self-determined…it’s not dictated to them and in many roles

there is a definite expectation that is not necessarily laid down”. Given the teamwork within D2

Company, staff receive regular ‘Feedback’ from colleagues and in addition to this, “get the

feedback from the people using (the products)”.

In addition to the other advantages of the integrated D2 Company model, D2 believes that it

provides staff with ‘Optimal Variety’ in their work, a sense of ‘Social Value’ and belief that there

is a ‘Desirable Future’ career for them. D2 explains how “this helps with an inside

understanding of the overall thing…, helps with retention rates” and develops opportunities for

people “to move within the company…broaden their wings…that (end-to-end function)

provides people with more of a career path”.

D2 feels fortunate to have received so much support from family and colleagues, particularly

during the more difficult periods of his career (Mutual Support and Respect). Many people who

know D2 and how he runs his business have said: “my god, there is no way I would be prepared

to do that”. According to D2, “the people around me...either have blind faith or just hold onto

their testicles and hope that they will make it out the other end”. With hindsight, he recognises

that this support has played an important role in his success and has formed the view that

“support networks actually allow you to do it...without people around you who acknowledge or

are prepared to go along for the ride then you don’t go”.

In terms of ‘Extrinsic Motivators’, D2 has run a successful company for seventeen years and

also enjoys high “status... industry...recognition”. As a result, D2 Company scores in the above

average range for ‘Extrinsic Monetary’ and ‘Extrinsic Non-Monetary’ motivators.

Communication and group dynamics

Coding and scoring for D2 Company suggest the presence of ‘Peer-Task Communication’;

however, there is also evidence of ‘Fight/Flight Group Dynamics’. This is expected from a

business which utilises a mixture of a formal ‘DP1’ and informal ‘DP2’ organizational structures.

Regarding the former, D2 makes the observation that “there are a number of individuals that

have them (creative ideas)”, and that these ideas “sort of percolate” and develop into design

Chapter 4: Results


products. He does not understand that the form of ‘Communication’ and ‘Group Dynamics’

flow from the organisational structure (Design Principle), so he explains variations in group

dynamics in terms of “gut chemistry…in getting people to work well together” and discusses

situations where “one person...moves into...a great team and suddenly things don’t work as

effectively”.

Means of adaptation

D2 adapts to the environment by learning from experience (Meaningful Learning) and by

solving problems (Problem Solving). He describes the process of adaption as “build(ing) on

what you’ve learnt and then tak(ing) it to….a particular product or a particular problem”.


The pattern producing D2’s PCP appears to include nine characteristics:

1. Growth of the design field and its practical usefulness to business.

2. Opportunity and support provided by his architect father.

3. Being highly talented, skilled and motivated to work in the design field.

4. Alignment between D2’s Subjectivizing-Externalizing personality and his decision

to start his own integrated industrial design company.

5. Opportunities for design work provided by the transition from a service to

innovation economy.

6. Growth in industrial design technology.

7. D2’s dedication to building an organisation (based on an informal DP2 structure)

that creates practical yet beautiful products by people who are continuously

learning, growing and being creative.

8. The establishment of ‘D2 Company’ as an integrated organisation (i.e.

incorporating all aspects of design), helped to maximise design quality and the

attraction and retention of staff.

9. In depth knowledge and understanding of customer needs allowed D2 to problem

solve and design unique and highly creative products.

Chapter 4: Results


4.3.6 Profile of business person #1

4.3.6.1 Overview

Business person #1 (B1) created an organisation called ‘B1 Company’ which became recognised

as the ‘best employer’ in Australia and New Zealand (Hewitt Best Employer Awards) for three

years in a row and was identified as a finalist in the awards on several other occasions. B1 was

subsequently referred to as the best ‘boss’ in Australia and the operation of B1 Company was

regularly reported in the media.

B1 was born in Victoria and is approximately 50 years of age. After spending a number of years

living in Sydney and New Zealand, B1 returned to Victoria where he currently resides. In 2009,

B1 sold B1 Company to a large USA based multinational and has since established another

business. B1 is separated and has children. He continues to be regarded as a creative

entrepreneur who has become a successful and wealthy businessman.


B1 grew up during the ‘counter culture’ of the 1960’s (O’Neill, 2011) and experienced the

benefits of Australia’s long economic boom (Macintyre, 1999; Attard, 2010; Mclean, 2012) and

the shift away from the conventional values of the 1950’s toward a more liberated approach

(Murphy & Smart, 1993).

B1’s early working career commenced at a time when many modern day information

technologies were being developed (Ceruzzi, 2003) and the economic and social environment

was becoming increasingly turbulent (Argy, 1992; Cincotta, 1997; Emery, 1999a). Key events

during this period include the emergence of stagflation, reduction of tariffs, floating of the

Australian dollar, deregulation of the Australian economy and the introduction of new business

management practices (Argy, 1992). Organisations introduced mass customisation, total quality

management and staff empowerment as practices designed to increase flexibility and

productivity (Applebaum & Batt, 1994; Bedeian, 2011). B1 recognised that “deregulation would

mean that people would shop around much more” and that this would provide business

opportunities. In addition, he observed and experienced the impact of ineffective management

and “was determined that when (he) got back…(he) would do exactly the

opposite...management style that we’d adopt”.

Chapter 4: Results


During the ten years leading up to the mid 1990’s, many organisations sought to achieve

competitive advantage via the introduction of increasingly sophisticated sales techniques such as

conceptual and strategic selling (Heiman & Miller, 1989; Carew, 1990; Heiman, Tuleja, Miller &

Marriott, 2005), contemporary marketing, business re-engineering and organisational downsizing

techniques (Applebaum & Batt, 1994; Bedeian, 2011; Kotler & Armstrong, 2011), the use of

high powered desktop computing technology, broadband access, voice recognition technology

and customer relationship management software. Call centres were also introduced by many

organisations seeking to provide customer service whilst optimising costs and efficiencies

(Hammer & Champy, 1993; Scott, 2011; Ryan, 2010). According to B1, some organisations

“didn’t have enough sales people to go and visit all their potential customers...after

deregulation” and in the lead up to establishing B1 Company, this led him to tinker “with call

centres and outbound telemarketing for quite some time”.

By the time B1 Company was established, Australian organisations were competing in a global

economy (Argy, 1992; Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001) and, in B1’s view, this meant “open

skies…airlines being able to now compete vigorously for business”. Being employed in the

airline industry at the time, this provided B1 with the “ability to use Ansett’s situation for

example…to create a business model which gained momentum”. These events occurred at a

time when internet usage by businesses and mainstream customers was high, and usage of

specialist information technology applications was experiencing significant growth (Peters, 2006;

Ryan, 2010; Scott, 2011). Venture capital also emerged as a popular model for financing the

establishment of start-up companies (Cetindamar, 2003; Lerner, Leamon & Hardyman, 2012)

and B1 used this financing model to provide “the capital for…(him) to begin acquiring other

customers, hiring the right sort of people”.

Toward the end of the 1990’s, the introduction of new technologies and marketing techniques

meant that consumers were becoming overloaded with information (Godin, 1999). In parallel,

many organisations sought to enhance profits by ‘right-shoring’, however, consumers became

increasingly dissatisfied with the impact that modern technologies and business management

techniques were having on service quality (Mushero, 2006; Bedeian, 2011). According to B1,

“there is a lot more process and discipline…a lot more focus on bottom line and…returns for

shareholders” within the modern corporation, and “it’s much more an analytical numbers game

now…there’s a different feel” to business.

B1 Company reached its maximum size in the early 2000’s, at a time when the ‘experience

economy’ (Pine II & Gilmore, 1999), skills shortages, demographic changes in the labour force

(Michaels et al., 2001), ‘generation X’ (Sheahan, 2005), ‘talent management’ techniques and ‘Best

Employer’ awards (Michaels et al., 2001) emerged. The first decade of the new millennium,

Chapter 4: Results


under the leadership of the Howard Government, was also a period of sustained economic

growth, and many organisations took advantage of the labour market flexibilities offered by the

WorkChoices legislation (Howard, 2010). B1 adapted to these changes by creating a

“freewheeling creative…highly innovative highly energetic…environment…when people

walked into the place they felt it, and when prospective clients came in here they felt it”.


Chart 9 below shows the pattern of person based characteristics that have contributed to B1

becoming recognised as a successful entrepreneur.

CHART 9: PROFILE OF B1: THE PERSON

Goals and interests

B1 scores as having less than the average ‘Number of Life Goals’ and ‘Number of Life

Interests’. He does not discuss any aspect of his life other than work related matters, nor does

he mention any other interests or lifelong pursuits.

Breadth of skills

B1 has the breadth of skills expected of a successful sales person (Breadth of Skills in Field) and

recognises that he is good at “putting deals together, communication skills, selling, and

Chapter 4: Results


presenting”. In addition to this, he has developed the negotiation, business and management

skills needed to run a successful and award winning business (Breadth of Learned Skills Not in

Field).

Expertise

B1’s scores on the variables measuring ‘Expertise Talent in Field’, indicate a ‘Distinctive Level

of Competence’. His expertise and success rely heavily on his ability to communicate and

influence people and these abilities were first publicly recognised during his early teenage years

where he won a:

Competition called Youth Speaks for Australia. One of the judges..., (the most famous

criminal lawyer in Melbourne), offered me a job as an articled clerk because I told him I

wanted to study law. The other judge...wanted me to work at Channel 9 as a cadet and

get into TV.

In addition to his natural intuition or feel for sales (Expertise Talent in Field), B1’s scores on the

variable measuring ‘Expertise Learned In Field’ also suggest a ‘Distinctive Level of Competence’

in sales and sales management. He is clearly aware of the effectiveness of specific sales

techniques and recognises the value that his skills contributed to the airline industry and his own

business. His expertise was developed through experience and “by the time he was twenty years

old he had ten years experience and (was) running a sales business of over two hundred people

that he had hired and trained himself to go door to door to sell encyclopaedias”. Later in his

career, when asked to establish a sales operation in New Zealand, he “killed them and did a

fantastic job”; so much so that he was asked to go “back for a second stint”.

Given the public recognition of B1 Company as a ‘best employer’, and the recognition B1

personally receives for his leadership skills, he can also be regarded as possessing a ‘Distinctive

Level of Competence’ in other business skills (Expertise Learned Not In Field).

Ideal seeking

B1 demonstrates ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour. He believes that “the vast majority of people are

prepared to accept what is, they accept the way things are”, whereas people such as him are

“people who are prepared to risk everything for an idea”.

Chapter 4: Results


B1 pursues the ideals ‘Nurturance’ and ‘Humanity’. He discusses the importance of training

during the middle and latter stages of his career, and clearly does everything he can to create a

well-trained and supported workforce. For instance, after he trained “the reservations

team…(he) taught Ansett’s field salespeople in consultative selling”. His efforts to develop the

skills of others are also evident in his philosophy of always “promot(ing) middle managers off

the call centre floor…team leaders were always the best agents who had been willing to put in

the training and the preparation”. B1 is determined to create a workplace which cares about

people (Humanity). According to B1, “the most important thing is that the people who come to

work, enjoy coming to work…that they’re motivated”. He has also “worked hard to create an

environment where people aren’t desperately looking forward to Friday at 5.00 pm”.

Purposefulness

B1 has a clear sense of ‘Purpose’ regarding the way customers are engaged and people are

managed in his business. He explains how he is “purely focused on a…vision” and recognises

his skill of “putting deals together” to achieve this vision. Illustrating his determination to stick

to his ‘Purpose’, he prefers to negotiate arrangements with customers on his own terms. For

instance:

If someone rang up and said…we’re interested in using your company to do some

work can you come and see us, I would say no I want you to come here. You come

here and see us, if you want to partner…I never went out and did a sales presentation

ever, ever…everyone used to come to me.

His ‘Purposefulness’ continues once he begins to work with a customer. He always strives to set

“minimum performance parameters (for customer service)…and then aspire continually to

exceed these parameters by a greater and greater margin over time”.

Motivational level

B1 scores four out of five on the scale measuring ‘Motivational Level’ and can be described as

being ‘Dedicated’. Whilst he acknowledges that there are days when his motivation is low, he is

well aware that he is highly motivated and this has played an important role in his success. He

believes that it is important to “find something you love doing and work hard to prepare for it”,

and has difficulty understanding how others cannot have the same level of dedication as himself.

For instance, he doesn’t “understand why…he (an Olympic athlete) quit” instead of persisting

and overcoming roadblocks.

Chapter 4: Results


B1 is clearly motivated to create a successful company and ensure that his company continues to

be successful. He believes that the failure of other organisations is often due to a lack of

motivation and them forgetting “the things which made them great…the behaviours…ideas and

thinking…that were there in the first place”. Without motivation he regards these organisations

as having reached “their mountaintop”.

Types of knowing

Scores on three of the four scales measuring the type of knowledge (Knowledge of, Knowledge

About and Understanding), show that B1 has a holistic appreciation of how to be successful in

business. B1 learnt “a tremendous amount without really knowing it, about selling,

communication and managing people” (Knowledge of) and recognises that building a successful

business requires “you…to be well prepared, well trained, well skilled, (and) knowledgeable”

(Knowledge About). He also believes that selling products “requires intelligence…because a

stupid sales person is just someone who is (like a) bull at a gate (and) ploughs on through the

sales presentation without ever referencing what’s going on in the customers head”. In addition

however, B1 has an “understanding” of why certain aspects of business are important. For

instance, he recognises that “it’s costly to lose people…[but] if they have decided to leave, you

can’t pay what you can’t pay”, and regards this as “a business based decision”.


B1 scores in the extreme range for ‘Subjectivizing’ and ‘Externalizing’ (see Appendix 10). He is

prepared to pursue his own ideas (Behavioural SO) and is “prepared to…turn around and swim

against the tide”. His belief that it was possible to “replicate what they did in the field by making

phone calls (Call Centres)” clearly shows his ‘Subjectivizing’. He also created a “very different”

working environment at ‘B1 Company’ because “intuitively…(he) believed that was the way to

do it” (Subjectivizing).

B1 has a strong preference for influencing the environment around him and for creating and

taking advantage of opportunities which arise (Behavioural IE). According to B1, “you will

encounter these things called opportunities…they will just come along, and the secret is to

recognise them when they come along and identify them and take advantage of them”. He

clearly recognises the differences between ‘Externalizers’ (himself) and ‘Internalizers’ and makes

the distinction between people who are “happy just to float along and just watch the world go

by” and those who “identify something and go, man I’m going to grab hold of that”. He also

discusses the importance of ‘Externalizing’ to success in business. In his view, “it doesn’t matter

how smart you are or how much you know, if you don’t have opportunity, you’re not worth

Chapter 4: Results


anything”. Heeding his own advice, B1 sought to create opportunities during employment at

Ansett and was determined to leave his “mark on the company and on the senior executives”.

On one occasion he proposed that the “airline…reach the small business market on the phone”

however “they didn’t know how to do it” and “they asked us to set up a business to do it”. He

also created the opportunities which would allow him to establish B1 Company. Of most

significance was the partnership financing arrangement he established, enabling him to “provide

the capital…begin acquiring other customers, hiring the right sort of people”.

Mode of learning

B1’s scores suggest that he has learnt by watching and interacting with others (Extract, or

learning by Extraction) rather than learning from books (Abstract, or learning by Abstraction).

He appears to have learnt to sell by himself by watching what works and what does not. He also

watches and learns from the new business ideas around him and thinks “gees let’s do that…I

like the look of that”.

Affects

B1 scores in the above average range for ‘Positive Affect’ and in the average range for ‘Negative

Affect’. He feels excited about and loves his work, particularly “doing deals” being “at the top

of your art” and “creating new techniques”. B1 recognises that his creative efforts are sustained

by positive affects and finds that when “creating new techniques and elements… discovering

new ways and doing new things, you are constantly excited…you want to keep trialling the new

techniques”.

The negative affects B1 experiences relate to lacking confidence and his recent divorce. He

regrets that he “didn’t have the confidence” to fund the start-up of B1 Company on his own.

He feels like he “needed them (business partners)” but now wishes that he had “retained 100%

(ownership)”. During the latter stages of his career, he developed strategies to help overcome

his lack of confidence. One of the methods he used “from day one”, involved meeting

customers on his own terms: “we never went and saw anyone, they always came here…it’s a

confidence thing, I felt more confident if I had them on my own ground”. There is no other

mention of negative affects, although, he has recently gone through a marriage separation and

felt that he was “probably the wrong person to ask (about the relationship between happiness

and success)”.

Chapter 4: Results


Health

There is no data available upon which to assess B1’s level of physical health. Based on his

affectual profile, B1 scores in the average range for ‘Mental Health’.



B1 becoming recognised as a successful entrepreneur.

CHART 10: PROFILE OF B1: THE ORGANISATION


B1 Company is an award winning organisation, employing up to 3000 people in Australia, New

Zealand and Malaysia with high profile customers including Qantas and Foxtel. The business

won the Hewitt Best Employer award for three consecutive years (an award which uses an

independent panel of judges to assess a combination of financial, customer and employee

measures) and in 2008 was purchased by a large American corporation. B1 Company therefore

scores in the above average range for socio-economic status (SES).

Chapter 4: Results


Technology

B1 Company is known for its “technological wizardry”, employing the latest in customer

relationship management software (Technology). As discussed above, B1 had been tinkering

with call centre technologies for many years and with the establishment of B1 Company he was

able to develop the technology and systems he imagined for a state of the art call centre. B1

does, however, recognise that “the key to improving the customer experience is not just about

new technology; it’s about new ways of thinking”.


B1 Company scores in the above average range for its organisational capabilities and can be

regarded as possessing a distinctive level of competence. B1 recognises that he and his staff are

“good at selling, and…very good at going and presenting (them) selves”. Furthermore, he

believes that B1 Company initially “attracted very good people” and that this “intellectual

content” allowed B1 Company to “go out and compete for business in the outsourced call

centre market…(and) put together very compelling arguments that we would be the best

choice”.

As B1 Company has developed, it has continued to employ highly skilled sales people who

continually develop their skills and use them to leverage the organisations advanced

technologies. B1 talks at length about “core training” and clearly articulates a view that staff

must be “well trained”. Moreover, he strongly holds the belief that you “can’t train customers,

so you need to train staff”. Reinforcing its emphasis on skill development, B1 Company ensures

that “management training courses going on the whole time” and promotes those who

demonstrate a commitment to developing their skills.

Location of instrumentality

B1 Company looks to serve the needs and goals of its employees wherever practicable

(Organisation is Instrument). B1 describes several examples where employees have requested

special consideration for individual needs and circumstances. In response, B1 Company attempt

to “explore every option practical to make it work for someone…(we) try our best to make it

work”.

Chapter 4: Results


Intrinsic motivators

B1 Company is an award winning organization. It scores in the optimal range for the first three

of the intrinsic motivators (Elbow Room, Setting Goals, Feedback and Variety) and receives

maximal scores for the remaining intrinsic motivators (Mutual Support and Respect, Social

Value, seeing the Whole Product and offering a Desirable Future).

B1 Company has a culture which is built upon ‘Elbow Room’, where “well trained, empowered

and engaged staff…can identify and resolve issues and prevent escalation of problems with

customers”, and according to B1, “there was no rule driven behaviour, it was all intuitive

thinking”. One key difference between B1 Company and other organisations is the ability of

employees to have a say in setting their own key performance indicators and receive “rather

rapid informal feedback” on how they are going (Set Goals, Feedback). B1 Company is

structured into teams around key customers, and each team deals with all matters pertaining to

their customers (Variety). Furthermore, B1 has a philosophy that “you have to support

people…you can’t motivate them”, and this ‘Mutual Support and Respect’ is designed into all

company processes. For instance, during the recruitment of staff, B1 Company utilise

advertisements that “attract a particular type of person…deter the wrong people and attract the

right people”. Following this they “spend a lot of time focusing on the style and compatibility of

attitude” to reinforce each aspect of the culture outlined above.

Employees working in these customer-centric teams understand the ‘Social Value’ of their work

to those customers and can easily see the ‘Whole Product’ of their work because of this

organisational structure. Staff within the organisation can also see that B1 Company “develop(s)

managers internally”, ensures that staff are “incredibly well coached”, and that middle managers

are “promoted…off the call centre floor” (Desirable Future).


B1 Company scores in the above average range for both ‘Monetary’ and ‘Non-Monetary’

extrinsic motivators. B1 appears to be wealthy due to his ownership of the company and is paid

a high proportion of his income on the basis of company performance. Monetary reward for

employees of B1 Company is determined by an enterprise agreement which “is very different

because it enables us to pay people on performance”. With hindsight, B1 wishes that he had

made monetary reward more significant in the operation of the company by taking “the top

management, the top six or seven critical people in the company and…given them a little share,

a nice share of the business”.

Chapter 4: Results


B1 Company also has a work environment which provides its staff with a high level of

“recognition” (provided by managers or directly from customers) and organises “fun

competitions” for staff to participate in.


An important factor contributing to the business success and unique culture of B1 Company is

the emphasis upon “quality…conversations” (Peer Based Communication). Staff at B1

Company aim to “surprise their customers” by very carefully “listening to what they say”. When

communicating with colleagues internally “agents discuss their work and the organisation is

virtually self-managing”. B1 also explains how “all the project managers are encouraged to have

interaction…without interference from anyone else”. The approach to communication within

B1 Company is therefore very different from other organisations with “a hierarchical structure”

and asymmetrical forms of communication.

Group dynamics

B1 Company has a mixture of group dynamics. There is evidence of staff working in a “free-

wheeling creative…highly innovative highly energetic…kind of environment” (Creative

Working Mode). However, “some people …always seem to get sick on a Monday and a Friday,

you know, long weekends” (Fight/Flight).


B1 Company operates using a mixed mode of ‘DP1’ and ‘DP2’ structures (see Appendix 10). B1

has observed firsthand the negative effects of ‘DP1’ and vowed to overcome these limitations.

He describes how DP1 structures produce “no communication, no recognition”, a situation

whereby no one speaks to staff or cares what they think and within the management layers

“things…get frayed and unravelled”. He believes that “a lot of middle management in

companies are fractious, political, lazy…hostile…single minded”. Furthermore B1 argues that:

In most companies, the management spend a lot of time in meetings…they are in

meetings all day. Around 4pm-5pm they come and read their 103 emails and answer

their 47 voicemail messages. They work in an environment where meeting after meeting

occurs, and those meetings are about managing the enterprise.

Chapter 4: Results


B1 however has no understanding of the design principles, and therefore no knowledge of how

to better achieve the outcomes he desires. The organisation is structured in customer-centric

teams or a “team of agents, for each of those clients” and “since day one…has had an extremely

flat management structure”. In addition to this, ‘B1 Company’ has a range of innovative

practices which are characteristic of a DP2 structure including “group interviews” for the

recruitment of new staff. Notwithstanding B1’s belief that “ownership leads to real motivation”

his efforts to institute ‘DP2’ have been undermined by his use of techniques which are

characteristic of ‘DP1’ (i.e. the use of team leaders and individual incentives). For instance:

Each of those teams; whether it’s a team of two or two hundred…have a project

manager. That project manager is almost entirely responsible for their client for

everything that happens within that project. Below the project manager you have some

operations people, but really just team leaders and agents…The project managers

report directly to…the Chief Operating Officer.

He clearly sees that improved performance is achieved by “put(ing) the best team leader in a

dud team”, and suggests “that team would be the best team within 3 months”.

B1 recognises the superiority of outcomes which flow from ‘DP2’. Specifically, he can see that

“there is almost no time given in this company to managing (B1 Company)” and values that the

management process is instead “everything to do with managing the actual needs or the

requirements of the individual customers we work for”.

The mixed mode structure at B1 Company therefore produces the mixture of group dynamics

described above. There is no data to indicate the presence of ‘Laissez-faire’, however, the

evidence above suggests that B1 would be uncomfortable with this lack of structure. In

particular, B1 makes the statement: “as for managing ‘B1 Company’, as long as it’s under

control, we’re relaxed”.

Communication

B1 has created a business where there is “a very free, open work environment which encouraged

communication”. This ‘Openness’, in conjunction with a range of other factors, was considered

by judges who selected B1 Company as a ‘best employer’.

Chapter 4: Results


Planning

There is limited data describing the planning approach used within B1 Company. The data

which does exist indicates the use of an ‘Optimised Planning’ approach based on the

assumption that clear ends can be identified. B1 describes his approach to planning in the

following way: “I’d take them away for a couple of days, put them in a room, say right, here’s

where we are today, here’s where we need to be in 6 months”. B1 does not seem to appreciate

the extended social field with its relevant uncertainty, or the need to plan with that in mind

(Active Adaptive Planning).

Strategies

B1 prefers to utilise a ‘Direct Strategy’. His approach is to move directly toward a pre-defined

goal and to “do the things that need to be done”. There is no evidence to indicate the presence

or absence of the ‘Strategy of the Indirect Approach’.

Means of adaptation

B1 Company adapts to its environment via ‘Meaningful Learning’ and ‘Problem Solving’. As

discussed above, B1 uses “bright ideas” and his experience and applies them where relevant. For

instance, B1 learnt that he could “replicate what they did in the field by making phone calls”. He

also learnt about the negative impacts of ‘DP1’ and vowed that he would use “exactly the

opposite…management style” when he got back to call centres. Consistent with his preference

for the use of a ‘Direct Strategy’, he prefers to tackle problems (Problem Solving) head on, and

“get the obstacles out of the road”. B1 indicates that he understands what ‘Puzzle Solving’

means and recognises individuals who are “good at putting all the bits together”, however, there

is no evidence of him utilising this as a means of adaptation, nor is there any evidence to

indicate the use of ‘Playing Dead’ as a means of adaptation.


The pattern producing B1’s PCP appears to include eight characteristics:

1. Influence of the liberalised culture and positive economic climate of the 1960’s

upon career aspirations and opportunities.

2. B1 being a highly talented and skilled communicator and salesperson.

3. Exposure to new sales and computer based sales technologies and techniques.

4. Being a dedicated individual with an extreme Subjectivizing-Externalising

behavioural preference.

Chapter 4: Results


5. Deregulation of the Australian economy and the increases in the popularity of call

centre and venture capital arrangements.

6. Establishment of an organisation (B1 Company) whose distinctive competence

arises from the use of sophisticated technology, positive communications and

group dynamics (associated with an informal DP2 structure) and the ability to

attract and retain staff (during a period in which there were changes in the

composition of the workforce and the emergence of skills shortages).

7. B1’s lifelong interest in sales and the creation of new sales techniques.

8. Opportunities arising from the inability of first generation call centre technologies

to maintain or improve service quality levels.

4.3.7 Profile of business person #2

4.3.7.1 Overview

Business person #2 (B2) popularised financial advice in Australia. His first book became a

global best seller during the early 1980’s and B2 went on to become a popular author, columnist

and founder of a successful Queensland based financial institution called ‘B2 Company’.

Born in Queensland as the eldest of two brothers, B2 is approximately 68 years of age, is happily

married with two children and continues to be a sought after public speaker and consultant by

many of the most wealthy people (and organisations) in Australia and New Zealand. He

continues to live in Queensland.


B2 was born in 1943, during a more stable environment than other participants, and into a very

different socio-cultural climate to that which exists today (Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a). The

period 1945-1964 is referred to by economists as Australia’s ‘Golden Age’ (Macintyre, 1999;

Attard, 2010; Mclean, 2012). It was a stable period of sustained post war economic growth and

relatively simple technology. Closely knit communities and social networks underpinned the

functioning of the business community and society, and there was little need to pay close

attention to the relatively static extended social field (Emery, 1977; Murphy & Smart, 1993;

Mclean, 2012). The conservative social values of the 1940’s and 1950’s were influential during

B2’s formative years (Murphy & Smart, 1993) and he developed a “respect for authority and

emphasis on role models for guidance and mentoring” as a consequence.

Chapter 4: Results


During the counter culture of the 1960’s (O’Neill, 2011) B2 established himself as a young

business man, commencing as “a bank officer” and then working as a “suburban lawyer” prior

to starting a “small real estate business”. During this time, financial planning emerged as a

profession in the United States and the beginnings of today’s information technology age also

emerged (Brandon, Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009). In many respects, the 1960’s can be

regarded as a time of optimism, opportunity, prosperity, and liberalisation of Australian society

(Macintyre, 1999; O’Neill, 2011; Mclean, 2012).

By the early 1970’s, B2 had expanded his business interests beyond banking, and started a

“building company in 1974”. During the late 1970’s, the Australian government provided a

government funded pension system and financial planning was confined to the selling of life

insurance, the provision of advisory services regarding complex retirement laws, and the

management of real estate (Brandon, Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009). Combined with the

relative economic stability of the time, these factors made financial planning and wealth

accumulation activities unattractive and inaccessible to most Australians (Brandon, Welch &

Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009, Mclean, 2012).

B2 published his first financial planning book during the early 1980’s during a time of economic

instability, deregulation and decentralisation, and the introduction of compulsory

superannuation (Walker, Perry & Murphy-Walker, 1987; Perkins, 1990; Deery & Plowman,

1991; Argy, 1992; Cincotta, 1997). During this period, the introduction of the Insurance

Contracts Act and the Insurance Agents and Brokers Act provided the legislative framework

required to establish financial planning as a profession and industry within Australia (Brandon,

Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009).

During the late 1980’s, a “combination of things happened” to increase the demand for financial

education and financial planning services within Australia. In contrast with the practice in earlier

decades, of working until the compulsory retirement age, Australians became increasingly

interested in taking early retirement. In addition, advances in health care, pharmaceuticals and

technology served to improve general life expectancy and, therefore, the typical period of

retirement. The Australian government responded to these changes by introducing a

compulsory superannuation system (Brandon, Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009). The stock

market crash of 1987 further increased demand for financial information as confidence in the

security of stocks and shares declined and property investment became increasingly attractive

(Shiller, 1989; Cull 2009). During this period, B2 published additional books and established ‘B2

Company’.

Chapter 4: Results


During the early 1990’s, the complexity and diversity of financial products increased rapidly.

Investment in shares, futures, commodities, options and packaged financial products (McGrath,

1994) became increasingly popular and the Australian Financial Planning Association was

introduced (Brandon, Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009). Throughout the late 1990’s and early

2000’s, financial and credit markets were deregulated and various forms of legislation were

passed to guide practices in the financial sector (Brandon, Welch & Tuttle, 2009; Cull, 2009).

During this period, global competition intensified (Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001; Mclean, 2012),

branding and product uniqueness increased in importance (Kotler & Armstrong, 2011;

Kapferer, 2012), mergers and acquisitions became a preferred means of growth and industry

consolidation (Fournier, 2012), and the internet became a mainstream communications device

(Ryan, 2010; Carr, 2011; Szoka & Marcus, 2011). B2 took advantage of these industry changes

and sold B2 Company to “HBOS…which has a staff of 90,000”. He also found that many of his

“friends…had their businesses bought out” and that the new economic regime required “a

different mindset”.

Since selling his business, B2 has continued to work in the financial sector as successive

governments have continued to encourage self-funded retirement via initiatives such as the

Superannuation Choice of Fund Act 2005 (Brandon et al., 2009; Cull, 2009). Demand for

financial advice has further increased in recent years as a decade of sustained economic growth

(Howard, 2010) has resulted in Australian housing prices increasing to among the highest in the

developed world (Badcock & Beer, 2000; Whittaker, 2012).


Chart 11 below shows the pattern of person-based characteristics that have contributed to B2

becoming recognised as a successful business person.

Chapter 4: Results


CHART 11: PROFILE OF B2: THE PERSON

Socioeconomic status

Although B2 describes himself as being “a poor boy to start with”, he scores as coming from a

middle class up-bringing because his “father was a farm manager” and his “grandfather was a

butter factory manager”.

Goals and interests

B2 has been successful in business; however, he has worked hard to ensure that he has a

balanced life (Goals) and discusses goals relating to family, professional relationships and his

career. For instance, after having “three kids under four”, B2 was determined to ensure that he

“wasn’t going to be the richest man in the cemetery and neglect the kids”. He “always put family

first” and promised his “wife a unique life” and believes that he has “done that pretty well”.

B2 does not discuss any (Interests) beyond his work, professional relationships and family.

Breadth of skills

Whilst there is no specific evidence on the variety of skills that B2 possesses innately, or has

learned, he scores as having an above average (Breadth of Skills Learned in Field) after holding a

Chapter 4: Results


range of roles all related to the finance sector (i.e. bank officer, lawyer, real estate agent, property

developer, author and financial advisor).

Expertise

B2 is passionate about continually improving his skills (Expertise Learned in Field) and “life

education”. He has used this passion to develop a high degree of expertise in finance and

business over the course of his long and eclectic career. Consequently, B2 scores in the

distinctively competent range on the scale measuring ‘Expertise Learned in Field’.

Ideal seeking

B2 is a man who has always had “this burning desire, always, as far back as…(he) can

remember, to have…(his) own business”. He describes this desire as “an itch” and sees himself

as “having a very entrepreneurial nature”. He dreams about “educational things…(and) a one

stop finance shop” and is clearly striving toward some long term ideals (Ideal Seeking).

Pursuing the ideal of ‘Nurturance’ has been a significant influence in his life. One of the

distinctive aspects of his profile is his desire to “educate…even when…(he) was selling real

estate”, and believes that he has always been an educator and that his “role in life is to be the

educator”. His pursuit of ‘Nurturance’ cannot, however, be separated from the business impact

of his efforts to educate others. According to B2, “you educated the consumer and then they

would buy from you so that was where the work came from”.

B2 has also tried hard to enhance the lives of his customers and employees (Humanity). He is

emphatic in his statement: “we’ve always done the right thing by people because we think that’s

important”. Furthermore, he insists: “all the people…(I) deal with…get treated well and…get

paid, promptly…the moment the bill comes I pay it”. His vision of ‘Nurturance’ however

extends beyond this to include “having a business where I treated people well”.

Purposefulness

B2 is highly ‘Purposeful’, he recognises that “you’ve got to have goals” and demonstrates an

ability to persist toward these goals (Purposes) over a long period of time. He believes that

achievements result from “sow(ing) seeds” but acknowledges that whilst “some sprout and keep

on sprouting…some sprout quickly and…die…some don’t sprout at all and some sprout in six

months’ time”. This belief was reinforced by the success of an innovative marketing campaign

Chapter 4: Results


he used whilst in real estate. According to B2, “for three or four months nothing happened, and

after that people started to talk about it”, so he “just kept at it”.

In addition to his perseverance toward worthy aims, B2 also ensures that he keeps his

commitments. Recently one of his friends said, “I didn’t believe you (that B2 would achieve his

business goals) but you did it”. No surprisingly, B2 is emphatic in his statement: “if I said to

anyone that I’ll do something, then I’ll do it”.

Motivational level

B2 scores on the scale measuring ‘Motivational Level’ indicate that he is best described as

‘dedicated’ rather than ‘obsessed’ or ‘compelled’. B2 values balance in life and “never wanted to

be the biggest… if I’ve got enough money and I’m doing what I want to do, I don’t see the need

to open branches in Perth and Adelaide and Darwin”. He does, however, recognise that balance

in life does not equate with laziness. In his view, “you’ve got to work hard”, particularly to

deliver on commitments to others. For instance, he describes a situation where he was suffering

from a detached retina but continued to work to ensure the job was complete for the customer.

Whilst he recognises that “we all need a push” and that “inertia is the problem”, it is clear that

he continues to be dedicated and “working just as hard” even after selling his businesses and

“never now (being able to) make as much from working…as (his) money can make for (him)”.

Types of knowing

B2 knows how to run a successful business (Knowledge About). He believes that it is important

to “know your numbers” in business and understands the relationship between the various

numbers and events in his business. According to B2:

There’s always a ratio… in our own business…every week we will get about the same

number of phone calls for appointments, and every week of those people who ring

we’ll probably convert about the same number to face to face appointments, it’s a ratio,

so I guess the more seeds you sow…the more chance you’ll have of getting more

people.

In addition to his knowledge of how to be effective in business, B2 also ‘Understands’ the

reasons why some approaches to business are more effective than others. For B2, “the first

thing is, what’s your Unique Sales Proposition (USP)? Are you the cheapest, fastest, best

Chapter 4: Results


looking, dearest…biggest range… you must have a USP”. Secondly, he believes that business

owners should ensure that their “business structure is right…to protect…family”, because

“there is a strong chance” that a new businesses will fail in the first few years. He is also cautious

and prudent when making business decisions, and believes it is important to run a business

“with your eyes open”.

Reflecting on his entire career, he also demonstrates a deeper level of understanding in relation

to his PCP. For instance, he recognises that writing his book “opened the door to many other

things”. For B2, opportunities arise from the work “you do…and that takes you to Y and Y

takes you to Z and Z takes you to A and that sort of business”.


B2 is an extreme ‘Subjectivizer’ and ‘Externalizer’, meaning that he is very strongly influenced

by his own ideas rather than the opinions of others (Behavioural SO). He is also highly action

focused and determined to influence the world around him (Behavioural IE).

B2 describes himself as having an “entrepreneur’s nature”. He is never averse to a new idea and

is not in any way tied to the tried and true or conventional. In addition to having “all these

ideas” of his own, he recognises the value of other’s ideas and adopts them early. For instance,

he “thought, that’s a great idea” when reading about a company that was “taking people around

to real estate in a bus, (and) instead of open houses, they’d have a seminar”.

B2’s extreme ‘Externalizing’ preference is evidenced by his action orientation. For instance,

when faced with the need to increase sales during his real estate career, he did something “which

had never been done before” and “just went out and had a hundred signs made, pointing

to…(his) display village”. Similarly, in his career as a financial advisor he found that he got

“bored with people” because, during consultations with customers, he could “work out the

strategy in five minutes” but did not “want to spend an extra three hours convincing them”.

This preference for action is also reflected in his favourite quote:

A writer should no more wait for inspiration than a cobbler should wait for it. A

cobbler should go to his bench and cobble shoes and a writer should go to his desk and

start, and that’s what I’ve got to do.

B2 is also critical of others who do not share his action orientation. In response to people who

say: “well I could have written that (book)”, B2 vehemently responds, “yeah but you didn’t,

see”.

Chapter 4: Results


Mode of learning

B2 appears to learn from everything around him. He learns from books and sees himself as a;

“great reader and learner” (Abstract). In addition to this, he learns from his observation of the

events around him (Extract). He believes that “you just pick up all this stuff” if “you’re always

out there with the old antenna on”. Illustrating his willingness to ‘Extract’ information from the

environment about how best to sell houses, B2 talks of his experience with another real estate

business and “thought ok well that’s the way to do it”. He also attempted to copy the advertising

approach used by his “local hairdresser” because of its effectiveness. As discussed above, B2

also places great emphasis upon business indicators, arguing that “your business talks to you 24

hours a day” and that it is critical “to listen to your business”.

Affects

B2 sees every part of his life in a positive light. He scores in the above average range for

‘Positive Affect’ and in the below average range for ‘Negative Affect’. He is satisfied with his

work and likes “the satisfaction of…doing things right”. His confidence in himself has grown

with his experience and “you find out that you aren’t as silly as (you thought), you can hold your

own…I used to be very nervous in the start but now I can hold my own anywhere”.

In addition to this, he feels good about life in general, and believes that his “life is as good as it’s

been”. In contrast, there is only one mention of being “frustrated” during the entire interview

(Negative Affect).

Health

B2 appears to be a physically fit, active man and describes having a “detached retina” and the

typical range of health problems found in 68 year old males. B2 therefore scores in the average

range for ‘Physical Health’. Notwithstanding this, B2 scores in the above average range on the

variable measuring ‘Mental Health’ because he appears to live a productive, fulfilling life with

which he is increasingly satisfied, and is getting “a better handle on life as…(he) get(s) older”.



B2 becoming recognised as a successful business person.

Chapter 4: Results


CHART 12: PROFILE OF B2: THE ORGANISATION


B2’s business (B2 Company) is a well-recognised Queensland based financial institution recently

acquired by a large multinational financial organisation. B2 built the business’s reputation on the

success of his bestselling book and has since developed “the best Filofax in Australia”. He

recognises that the success of his businesses has made him extremely wealthy and that he “could

never now make as much from working…as…(his) money can make for (him)”.


B2 scores in the optimal range for the first three of the intrinsic motivators, (Elbow Room,

Setting Goals, Feedback and Variety) and in the maximal range for the remaining intrinsic

motivators (Mutual Support and Respect, Social value, seeing the Whole Product and Desirable

Future). Being the owner of several companies, B2 has been able to make his own decisions, set

his own goals, determine the variety in his work, and receive feedback on how he is progressing

toward those goals. He particularly values the “feedback from people who have said, what

you’ve done has really helped me”. B2 has made ‘Mutual Support & Respect’ a key principle in

his own life, always doing “good turns for people without thought of reward”. He has

developed the view that if he “keep(s) doing good turns for people, someone will do a good

turn to me”, and “so far there always have been things for (him)”.

Chapter 4: Results


Being an entrepreneur, he has been able to create his dream of “having a business where…(he)

treated people well”. This has provided him with a sense of ‘Social Value’. As an entrepreneur,

B2 takes the initiative, starts up the business, produces the results and sees the effects of his

actions (Whole Product). As discussed above, a clear image of a ‘Desirable Future’ has been

present throughout B2’s career and in many respects fulfilled.


B2 scores in the above average range for both ‘Extrinsic Monetary’ and ‘Extrinsic Non-

Monetary’ motivators. His businesses have provided such a financial return that he “could never

now make as much from working…as…(his) money can make”. Despite the monetary reward,

he makes it clear that he has never worked purely for the money and continues “working just as

hard” on a volunteer basis. According to B2, monetary reward serves to prevent dissatisfaction,

but does not play an important role in PCP. He does not believe that “you…need a lot of

money” but does recognise that “it’s certainly better to be rich than poor”. He also

acknowledges that “there are other issues” which come with wealth.

B2 has received a great deal of ‘Extrinsic Non-Monetary’ reward from his businesses. In

contrast to the role of ‘Extrinsic Monetary’ reward in his life, this non-monetary reward seems

very important to him, particularly “emails from people saying, I bought your book and it

changed my life”.

Variety increasing or decreasing

B2’s career has included banking, law, real estate, property development, writing and financial

services. His business success has clearly enabled him to increase the variety in his work.

Communication

The communication inside B2 Company is informal communication between peers which

focuses on task accomplishment (Peer-Task Communication). There is no indication of

‘Asymmetrical Formal’ communication. Whilst B2 likes to “get around there and stir ‘them

up… chat about things and discuss things”, he is genuine and informal and will “never use

people”. B2 communicates with people who he likes and ensures that he never says “things out

of school”. Trust is important to him and “if…(people) tell me something it stays with me”. He

does not believe in “sucking up” or other forms of insincere communication.

Chapter 4: Results


Group dynamics

B2 provides a comprehensive overview of his dealings with employees and their behaviour. He

makes no mention of the unproductive group dynamic ‘Fight/Flight’. He clearly values his

autonomy and the autonomy of others and rejects any form of ‘Dependency’. He is appalled by

the dependent behaviour of one of his customers and cannot “believe a man of that age would

have to rely on someone to tell him what he was doing for the day”. He finds this type of

behaviour “astounding”.


B2 does not understand the design principles; however, he has observed that ‘DP1’ inhibits the

functioning of a business. In his words, “if you want to stuff a restaurant, put in a manager,

that’ll soon bugger it up”. B2 believes that such problems result from a combination of social

distance between the manager and employees, and the size of the organisation. In his view, “as

business gets bigger...the lines get slower…the lines of communication…just aren’t quick

anymore. It’s a different mindset”.

He has done everything he can in his businesses to create cooperation and high quality work

(DP2). Reflecting on the lessons he has learned observing other successful businesses, he has

come to believe that:

Really, everything you do in life depends upon cooperation of people…..I mean all the

successful restaurant owners I know are on the floor or in the kitchen you know. They

keep their staff for a long time because they treat them well.

In addition to treating others well, he believes that the solution is “empowering down” and

giving people “as much freedom as you can”. Given he has no knowledge of the design

principles, and therefore does not know there is an alternative to ‘DP1’, B2 has adopted a

human relations approach to try and overcome the negative effects of ‘DP1’. He struggled to

reconcile how to “be with them, but above them” and in his view this “is a bit of a balancing

act”.

Notwithstanding his efforts to create the outcomes which would flow from a ‘DP2’ structure,

B2 confesses that he has tended to “micromanage” his businesses. He does, however, recognise

that “you tend to be a micromanager because it’s all you know” and furthermore that “you can

never get big doing that, (and) at some stage you’ve got to let go”.

Chapter 4: Results



B2 has a great respect for authority and relies on people like his “old friend on Saturday night”

whom he respects “enormously”. He has “always had someone…(he) could look up to” and the

primary means by which he learns and changes is via ‘Opinion Leaders’ rather than through

interaction with his ‘Peers’. Even in situations where he doesn’t “have someone (to look up to,

he would)…find somebody”.

Planning

There is little evidence regarding B2’s approach to planning; however, his orientation is towards

‘Optimized Planning’ as opposed to ‘Active Adaptive Planning’ (Emery, 1999a). He is willing to

use new ideas and develop plans for specific long term financial outcomes. Furthermore, he

believes that “everybody could have far more than they thought possible, if they make the best

use of what they’ve got, starting today” through effective financial planning.

There is no evidence, however, to suggest that B2 seeks to change the nature of the wider

environment or influence others in his planning.

Means of adaptation

B2 adapts to his environment in three ways: using ‘Tactics’, ‘Meaningful Learning’ and ‘Problem

Solving (Emery, 1999a). His major tactic in building his businesses has been to pick up and

utilise any “good ideas” that he comes across. As discussed above, B2 uses his “old antenna” to

learn from everything he can in his environment and uses this knowledge, and the knowledge he

gains from reading, to better his businesses, his life and himself. He also “went out (and solved

the problem)” when he “noticed that there were no responses to newspaper ads” (advertising

his building company). Furthermore, he solved the problems which resulted from the ‘DP1’

structure of his business, such as the difficulties of managing staff.

There is no evidence of B2 attempting to adapt to his environment by ‘Puzzle Solving’, or by

‘Playing Dead’ (Emery, 1999a).


The pattern producing B2’s PCP appears to include ten characteristics:

1. The traditional values of respect and doing the right thing by people that he learnt

during his childhood.

Chapter 4: Results


2. Changes in the economic environment which resulted in the growth of financial

planning services since the 1980’s.

3. The depth and breadth of expertise B2 developed over the 20 years prior to

publishing his first book.

4. Possessing an extreme subjectivising-externalizing personality and a willingness to

make and take opportunities and develop an extensive range of professional

contacts.

5. B2’s dedication to his dream to run a business which treats customers and

employees well.

6. B2’s efforts to learn from everything and use this learning to adapt to the world

around him.

7. The support and stability provided by B2’s marriage and his physical and mental

health.

8. The positive affects that have come from B2’s work and life and the role they have

played in sustaining his efforts.

9. Increased demand for property and financial services provided by the growth in the

Australian property market during the 1990’s.

10. The establishment of a business which had a unique service proposition and

continued to treat its staff and customers well.

4.3.8 Analysis of performer data

Table 10 contains a summary of the scores for each of the six ‘Performers’ interviewed. Scoring

scales for each variable are as previously defined in Table 2.

Chapter 4: Results


TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF PERFORMER SCORES

M 1 M 2 D1 D2 B1 B2

Opportunities Afforded 4 4 4 4 4 4

SES 2 0 0 0 0 2

Breadth learned skill in field 3 3 3 3 3 3

Breadth learned skill not in field 0 0 1 0 2 0

Breadth talent in field 0 3 0 0 0 0

Breadth talent not in field 2 0 0 0 0 0

Expertise learned in field 4 4 4 4 4 4

Expertise learned not in field 0 0 3 3 4 0

Expertise talent in field 4 4 4 4 4 0

Expertise talent not in field 1 0 0 0 0 0

Knowledge Of 0 0 0 0 4 0

Knowledge about 4 4 4 4 4 4

Understanding 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ideal 4 4 4 4 4 4

Homonomy 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nurturance 4 4 4 4 4 4

Humanity 1 4 4 0 4 4

Beauty 4 4 4 4 0 0

Purpose 4 4 4 4 4 4

M otivation Level 5 4 4 4 4 4

Goals 1 0 1 0 1 2

Interests 1 2 3 2 1 1

Behavioural SO 1 1 1 2 1 1

Behavioural IE 2 2 4 3 5 5

Abstract 1 0 0 0 1 4

Extract 4 4 4 4 4 4

Positive affect 2 3 3 3 3 3

Negative affect 3 1 2 2 2 1

Physical health 2 0 2 0 0 2

M ental health 1 3 2 0 2 3

SES 2 2 3 3 3 3

Technology 2 2 0 3 3 0

Skills 2 3 0 3 3 0

DP1 1 1 1 4 4 4

DP2 4 4 4 4 4 4

LF 0 0 1 1 1 1

Elbow room 3 3 3 3 3 3

Set goals 3 3 3 3 3 3

Feedback 3 3 3 3 3 3

Variety 3 3 3 3 3 3

M utual support 3 3 3 3 3 3

Social value 3 3 3 3 3 3

Whole product 3 3 3 3 3 3

Desirable future 3 3 3 3 3 3

Extrinsic monetary 2 2 3 3 3 3

Extrinsic non monetary 2 3 3 3 3 3

Org as instrument 0 0 0 0 4 0

Variety increasing 3 0 0 0 0 3

Dependency 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fight Flight 0 0 0 4 4 1

Creative Working 0 4 4 0 4 0

Communication 3 3 3 3 3 3

Openness 0 0 4 0 4 0

M eans of change 3 3 0 0 0 1

Optimized planning 1 0 0 0 4 4

Active adaption 1 4 0 0 1 1

Indirect strategy 1 0 0 0 0 0

Direct Strategy 0 0 0 0 4 0

Tactics 0 0 0 0 0 4

M eaningful learning 1 0 4 4 4 4

Problem solving 4 0 4 4 4 4

Puzzle Solving 0 0 4 0 1 0

Superficiality 4 0 0 0 0 0

Dissociation 4 0 4 0 0 0

Doomsday 0 0 4 0 0 0

Social engineering 4 0 0 0 0 0

Th

e P

ers

on

Th

e O

rgan

isati

on

As Table 10 shows, all six ‘Performers’ share the following characteristics:

Distinctive competence in both innate and learned expertise in their field.

An above average breadth of learned skill in their fields.

In addition to their skills and talents, they know how to be effective in their field

Chapter 4: Results


and they understand it well.

They display ideal seeking behaviour and pursue the ideal of nurturance.

They are purposeful and strive to achieve specific objectives.

They are highly motivated and can at least be described as dedicated to their work,

and in some cases can be described as obsessed or compelled.

They are Subjectivizers who strongly prefer to pursue their own ideas rather than

be guided by those around them.

They learn from experience and are keen observers of the world around them.

During their careers, the environment has provided them with opportunities.

Table 10 also shows that five out of the six participants experience above average levels of

positive affect.

Regarding the organisation that the six ‘Performers’ work and live within, Table 10 shows that:

They are organisations that have attained at least an average level of financial

success (above average in most cases).

They are formal or informal Design Principle 2 (DP2) structures (Emery, 1999a).

Two of the ‘Performers’ worked in formal DP2 structures while the other four

worked in formal DP1 structures which they had modified in various ways to

produce cooperative, motivated and efficient functioning.

They provide optimal and/or maximal scores on all the intrinsic motivators.

They use informal peer-task communications rather than formal asymmetrical

forms of communication.

In addition, five of the six ‘Performers’, worked in organisations which adapt to the

environment by ‘solving problems’.

4.3.9 Analysis by domain

The pattern of characteristics outlined in Table 10 was analysed separately in accordance with

the domain of work that each ‘Performer’ is engaged in. Table 11 summarises the patterns

which were identified for three domains; Music, Design and Business. An ‘X’ is marked in Table

11 to show where there is complete agreement in scoring of ‘Performers’ in a domain. Heavy

shading indicates agreement in scores across all three domains, and light shading is provided

where five out of the six ‘Performers’ are consistent in their scores.

Chapter 4: Results


TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF DOMAIN SPECIFIC PATTERNS OF PCP

Business Music Design

Opportunities Afforded X X X

Breadth learned skill in field X X X

Expertise learned in field X X X

Expertise learned not in field X

Expertise talent in field X X

Knowledge about X X X

Understanding X X X

Ideal X X X

Nurturance X X X

Humanity X

Beauty X X

Purpose X X X

M otivation Level X X

Interests X

Behavioural SO X X

Behavioural IE X X

Extract X X X

Positive affect X X

Negative affect X

SES X X X

Technology X

DP1 X X

DP2 X X X

LF X X

Elbow room X X X

Set goals X X X

Feedback X X X

Variety X X X

M utual support X X X

Social value X X X

Whole product X X X

Desirable future X X X

Extrinsic monetary X X X

Extrinsic non monetary X X

Communication X X X

M eans of change X

Optimized planning X

Active adaption X

M eaningful learning X X

Problem solving X X

Th

e P

ers

on

Th

e O

rgan

isati

on

Business

The profile of both business people shows that they:

1. Pursue the ideal of humanity but do not pursue the ideal of beauty.

2. Possess only work related interests.

3. Are Externalizers and prefer to take action to influence the world around them.

4. Utilise optimized planning and do not utilise any active adaptive planning.

Chapter 4: Results


Music

The profile of the musicians shows that they:

1. Have an extreme preference for internalizing.

2. Require only an average level of technology to be successful and creative.

3. Reject the role of monetary reward and achieve an average level of socio-economic

status.

4. Are strongly influenced by their professional peers in relation to skills and career

direction.

Design

The profile of both designers shows that they:

1. Possess expertise in areas which are outside of design.

2. They share the pursuit of beauty with musicians; however, they are unique in their

desire to pursue solutions which combine beauty and practicality.

4.3.10 Profile of the Peak Creative Performer

The preceding analysis illustrates a clear pattern of personal and organisational characteristics

associated with ‘Peak Creative Performance’ (PCP).

Performance and creativity cannot be explained by biological, personality, motivational,

organisational or environmental characteristics alone. Rather, the person becomes engaged in a

field which utilises their innate talents and enables them to learn and develop a broad range of

skills. Following a significant amount of practice, the individual builds on their innate talents and

develops a high level of expertise in their field. Positive affects amplify as the individual finds

they are increasingly skilled and effective in their domain. The individual becomes highly

motivated, dedicated and sometimes obsessed with, or compelled by their work. As their

personality forms, they develop a strong preference for pursuing their own ideas. They are not

easily influenced by the opinions of others and appear to be incredibly courageous and resistant

to criticism as a result. They are keen observers of their environment. During their early to mid-

career, these individuals make or take opportunities which results in them becoming recognised

throughout their field. Often, they commence their own business or practice and appear to be

highly purposeful in achieving specific aims and are often regarded as being on an endless quest

in pursuit of idealistic ends. It is important to them to become ‘the best they can’ and to help

others to do the same. Their already high motivation and positive affects toward their work

continues to grow, and they continue to be keen observers, learning from everything around

Chapter 4: Results


them and developing a high degree of knowledge about how to be effective in their field as well

as understanding why they are being effective. The organisations that they establish and live and

work within typically have the motivating characteristics and positive group dynamics of a DP2

organisational structure (however may not be a formal DP2 structure). Their organisations often

adapt to the environment by solving problems and making and taking opportunities. These

individuals and their organisations achieve an average to above average level of financial success

and become recognised by their peers and people in the community more generally as ‘Peak

Creative Performers’ (PCP).

Examination of the similarities and differences in this pattern by domain, suggests that those

who are successful and creative in business strive for the ideal of humanity and are more

narrowly focused on their work. They are Externalizers who are acutely aware of their

environments and develop plans to solve problems and actively create opportunities.

The career of a successful and creative musician is strongly shaped by professional peers. They

prefer to work in small DP2 organisational structures and are Internalizers who influence the

world by pursuing beauty in their music. They are disinterested in monetary reward and achieve

an average level of financial success.

Successful and creative designers are unique in the sense that they become interested in

solutions to problems which combine practicality and beauty. They develop a much broader

range of expertise than is the case for business people or musicians and also strive to maintain a

greater degree of control over their organisations than is the case for business people or

musicians.

4.4 Observer patterns of PCP

4.4.1 Introduction

Appendix 5 contains raw data tables for the ‘Observer’ sample (n=24). As discussed in Section

3.12 ‘Observer’ data was analysed using ‘Causal Path Analysis’ (McQuitty, 1964; Emery, 1976).

Significant variables identified by the Causal Path Analysis were then converted into a summary

table to enable comparison with ‘Performer’ data tables. Similarities and differences between the

two data sets were then discussed.

Chapter 4: Results


4.4.2 Causal path analysis

As outlined in Sections 2.13 and 3.12, ‘Causal Path Analysis’ is a method of analysis with

extensive application in OST studies because of its usefulness in identifying systemic patterns.

Causal Path Analysis commences by developing a standard correlation matrix identifying the

strength of relationships between each of the variables within the study. Measures of correlation

can range from -1 (indicating a perfectly negative relationship between two variables) to +1

(indicating a perfectly positive relationship between two variables). Causal Path Analysis then

subjects the initial correlation matrix to a simple form of reduction during which the most

strongly related (i.e. correlated) variables are successively grouped together and treated as a

single unit (i.e. in Figure 2 below, the central cluster contains six variables: ‘Opportunity’,

‘Purposeful’, ‘High Motivation’, ‘Positive Affect’, ‘Opinion Leader’, ‘Support- Staff, Colleagues’).

This process is called ‘reiterating the correlation matrix’ and allows the researcher to see how

variables cluster together and see how these clusters themselves are systemically related. The

process is repeated until a single pattern of relationships (correlations) are identified. The

measure of correlation between variables indicates the strength of association but does not

identify the direction of the relationship. Typically, the reduced correlation matrix (i.e. the final

reiteration) is represented in a graphical form with lines connecting the clusters of variables so

that the diagram can be easily read. The direction of relationships (if they are listed), are assigned

by the researcher based on the direction of relationships suggested by the relevant literature.

The Figure 2 below provides the results of the fifth reiteration of the ‘Observer’ correlation

matrix. The Causal Path diagram shows that the central variables contributing to PCP are

‘Opportunity’, ‘Purposefulness’, ‘High Motivation’, ‘Positive Affect’, ‘Opinion Leaders’ and

‘Supportive Staff and Colleagues’. PCP is, however, also correlated with ‘Socio-economic Status’

at the level of 0.93 (meaning an almost perfectly positive relationship). The variables which are

most closely tied to the central PCP cluster (with a correlation of 0.44) are ‘Talent in Field’ and

‘Understanding’. These two variables are in turn most strongly related, (at the level of 0.43; a

positive and moderately strong relationship), to ‘Design Principle 2’ organisational structures

(DP2). This result suggests that talent and understanding are associated with organisational

structures in which responsibility for coordination and control is shared. The variables which are

the next most strongly correlated with the central PCP cluster, (with a correlation of 0.38), are

‘Expertise Learnt in Field’ and ‘Extraction’ of information directly from the environment.

Design principle 2 (DP2) structures are also correlated with ‘Arts’ (at the level of 1.0), and with

‘Politics’ (at the level of 0.78).

Chapter 4: Results


FIGURE 2: CAUSAL PATH DIAGRAM 1

r=0.38 @p<0.05; r=0.49 @p<0.01; r=0.60 @p<0.001

The variables remaining in Figure 2 were then re-entered into a sub matrix and re-examined to

provide the more detailed causal path diagram (Figure 3 below).

The central variables in Figure 3 are ‘Purposefulness’, ‘High Motivation’ and ‘Positive Affect’.

The variables most strongly associated with this central PCP cluster are; ‘Opinion Leaders’ (with

a correlation of 0.74), ‘Expertise Learnt in Field’ (with a correlation of 0.72), ‘Talent in Field’

(with a correlation of 0.64), ‘Opportunities’ (with a correlation of 0.61), and ‘Understanding’

(with a correlation of 0.5).

The influence of ‘Opinion Leaders’ is most strongly associated with ‘Supportive Staff and

Colleagues’ (at the level of 0.53). Expertise is shown to be associated with ‘Extraction’ (with a

correlation of 0.52), and ‘Understanding’ is related to ‘DP2’ (at the level of 0.42). Figure 2

therefore suggests that, in the view of ‘Observers’, PCP is primarily the result of motivation

toward long term objectives. Fuelling this motivation is the positive feeling that the PCPer

derives from his or her pursuits (alternatively, PCPers may experience positive affects as a

consequence of the sense of achievement which is produced when progress is made toward long

term objectives). Figures 2 and 3 suggest that the long term objectives of the PCPer emerge as

they develop and hone their skills in a domain and are provided with opportunities to do so.

The positive feelings which fuel the high motivation necessary for PCP appear to develop

because the young PCPer finds that they have an innate ability in a particular domain and are

introduced to, and supported in, that domain by an influential and respected mentor. Figures 2

and 3 provide support, therefore, for the hypothesis outlined in Section A 9.6 (that talent, skills

and performance produce positive feeling and efficacy), and counter the alternative view that

positive thinking leads skill acquisition.

Chapter 4: Results



r=0.38 @p<0.05; r=0.49 @p<0.01; r=0.60 @p<0.001

The design principle is the central concept used within OST (and in this study) to distinguish

between the type of organisational structure and functioning most strongly associated with PCP.

Figures 2 and 3 have clearly illustrated the contribution of ‘DP2’ to PCP through its relationship

with ‘Talent in Field’ and ‘Understanding’. Whilst ‘DP1’ dropped out of the overall analysis (i.e.

no significant correlations were present), a minority of observers did favour ‘DP1’ or aspects of

its effects as a contributor to success. To clearly establish the organisational form for PCP, it is

necessary to understand this minority view by further analysing the ‘DP1’ based contributors to

PCP.

This analysis was performed by entering the variables which had significant correlations with

‘DP1’ into a correlation matrix. The resulting Causal Path diagram is presented in Figure 4

below.


r=0.38 @p<0.05; r=0.49 @p<0.01; r=0.60 @p<0.001

Chapter 4: Results


As can be seen in Figure 4, there were only five variables that had a significant correlation with

‘DP1’. This confirms that valuing ‘DP1’ as a contributing factor to PCP is very much a minority

view.

The central variables in Figure 4 are ‘Expertise Learnt in Field’ and ‘Ideal Seeking’. The variables

most strongly associated with this central cluster are ‘DP1’ with a correlation of 0.48 and

‘Opportunities’ with a correlation of 0.45. DP1 is then next most strongly associated with

‘Leadership’ at the level of 0.45 and then ‘Risk Taking’ at the level of 0.43. It would appear then

that individuals may continue to demonstrate ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour (i.e. the endless pursuit

of ‘Beauty’, ‘Homonomy’, ‘Nurturance’ or ‘Humanity’) within ‘DP1’ structures (a result which is

not anticipated by OST); however, working in a ‘DP1’ structure has the effects of lowering ‘Risk

Taking’ and emphasizing the role of ‘Leadership’ (relationships which are expected by OST).

‘DP1’ is therefore clearly not systematically related to the variables producing PCP (identified in

Figures 2 and 3) and therefore is not the predominant organisational form contributing to PCP.

4.4.3 Observer data summary

For completeness, Tables 12 and 13 containing a summary of the ‘Observer’ data drawn from

Appendix 5 were analysed to identify if additional variables (i.e. variables in addition to those

identified in the ‘Causal Path Analysis’) may be contributing to PCP. The tables contain the

percentage of ‘Observers’ who identified each variable as a significant contributor to PCP along

with shaded sections to identify those variables regarded as significant within the ‘Causal Path

Analysis’. Percentages of responses are categorised according to ‘Observer’ domain of work (i.e.

Sport, Business, Artistic, State Emergency Services, Politics, Music and Design) and an overall

percentage score was also calculated.

In keeping with Sections 3.1 and 3.3, whilst percentages are used as a means of summarising

qualitative data, they are not intended to provide a means of quantifying qualitative data.

Consequently, percentages are reported with no decimal places throughout the section.

Tables 12 and 13 show that, in addition to the sixteen significant variables identified in the

‘Causal Path Analysis’, over fifty percent of ‘Observers’ also believed that the following variables

were important to PCP:

1. Subjectivising behavioural preference (58%).

2. Team spirit (54%).

3. A strong knowledge of their environment and changes in it (54%).

4. Curiosity and seeking novelty (50%).

Chapter 4: Results


Whilst the variables of ‘Team Spirit’ and ‘Knowledge of Environment’ echo the concepts ‘DP2’

and ‘Extraction’ identified within the ‘Causal Path’ diagram in Figure 3, identification of the

variables: ‘Subjectivizing-Behavioural Preference’ and ‘Curiosity’ suggest that personality may

play a more important role in PCP than first indicated by the ‘Causal path Analysis’.

TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF OBSERVER DATA (PERSON VARIABLES)

Observers Summary Table- Personal Variables

Overall Sport Business SES Political Artistic Music Design

Opportunities afforded/taken/luck

67% 70% 86% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Above average SES

8% 10% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average breadth learnt skill in field

17% 10% 29% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average breadth learnt skill not in field

8% 0% 14% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Above average expertise learnt in field

71% 60% 71% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Above average expertise learnt not in field

4% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average expertise talent in field

75% 90% 43% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Above average expertise talent not in field

21% 20% 14% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Knowledge about

38% 30% 29% 67% 50% 50% 100% 0%

Understanding 63% 70% 57% 100% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Ideal seeking 63% 40% 71% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Ideal - homonomy

8% 10% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ideal - nurturance

8% 10% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ideal - humanity

17% 10% 14% 33% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Ideal - beauty 29% 20% 29% 33% 0% 100% 100% 100%

Purposefulness 92% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Above average motivation

96% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Chapter 4: Results


Presence of other interest(s)/life balance

38% 60% 29% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Behavioural preference S

58% 40% 71% 67% 100% 50% 0% 100%

Behavioural preference I

8% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Behavioural preference E

25% 20% 29% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Abstract knowledge

13% 10% 14% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Extract knowledge

50% 60% 57% 33% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Above average positive affect

88% 100% 71% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Below average negative affect

17% 10% 14% 33% 0% 50% 100% 0%

Above average physical health

33% 50% 0% 33% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Above average mental health

33% 30% 43% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Additional variables

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Accurate knowledge of self/self-aware

21% 20% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Self-control 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Egocentric 13% 10% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Not egocentric/ team player

25% 20% 43% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Good parenting 13% 10% 0% 33% 0% 50% 100% 0%

Family expectations

8% 0% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Crisis/crises in life

25% 10% 57% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Necessity 17% 10% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fear of failure 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 0%

Communication skills

4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Good interpersonal skill/people skills

4% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Curiosity/ seeking novelty

50% 50% 71% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Chapter 4: Results


Risk taking 38% 20% 71% 33% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Pattern recognition

4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

In touch with collective unconscious

29% 10% 57% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0%

Knowledge of environment, changing environment

54% 30% 100% 67% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Make sacrifices 13% 20% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable

46% 30% 71% 67% 0% 50% 0% 100%

TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF OBSERVER DATA (ORGANISATION VARIABLES)

Observers Summary Table- Organisational Variables

Overall Sport Business SES Political Artistic Music Design

Above average SES of organization

13% 10% 14% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average technology including communication systems

13% 0% 14% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Above average skills in organization

17% 10% 29% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DP1 50% 50% 43% 67% 0% 100% 100% 100%

DP2 67% 70% 86% 67% 50% 0% 0% 0%

LF 4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Optimal or above elbow room

42% 30% 71% 33% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Optimal or above room to set goals

17% 10% 14% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Optimal or above feedback

33% 40% 29% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Continuous learning/ improvement (not split into goal setting & feedback)

33% 20% 29% 100% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Optimal or above variety

4% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average mutual support and respect

42% 30% 71% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average social value

4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Chapter 4: Results


Above average seeing of whole product

4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Meaningfulness (not split into value & see whole product)

4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average desirable future/ multiskilled

29% 20% 43% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above average financial reward

13% 10% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Above average non-financial reward

25% 20% 29% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Dependency 4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fight/flight/ competition/love competition

13% 20% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Creative working mode 38% 40% 29% 67% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Asymmetrical communications/ Change through opinion leader

75% 80% 71% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Communications between peers/ Change through working with peers

46% 30% 71% 67% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Openness 8% 10% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Psychological similarity 13% 20% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 0%

Trust 33% 40% 29% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Type 2. Meaningful learning

8% 10% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Type 3. Optimizing planning/Strategy of direct approach/ Problem solving

42% 50% 43% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Type 4. Active adaptive planning/Strategy of indirect approach/ Puzzle solving

21% 20% 29% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Additional variables 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Leadership 42% 40% 43% 33% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Diversity of personnel/ skills

17% 10% 14% 33% 0% 50% 0% 100%

Use celebrities 4% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Finding niche/right position

25% 30% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Taking personal responsibility/ accountability

8% 10% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Chapter 4: Results


Training as conditioning/on automatic/highly unnatural training environment

25% 40% 0% 33% 0% 50% 100% 0%

Reputation 8% 10% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Support/support staff/ support team/ client

67% 80% 71% 0% 100% 50% 0% 100%

Team spirit/team environment/culture/ enabling environment/ culture

54% 60% 57% 67% 50% 0% 0% 0%

Get sense of achievement

42% 30% 71% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

Good interpersonal relationships, use communication/people skills

38% 40% 14% 67% 50% 50% 0% 100%

Flexible/ adaptable (organisation)

33% 30% 43% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4.5 Findings

4.5.1 Corroboration of performer and observer analyses

Section 3.13 discussed the role of ‘structural corroboration’ in analysing data. Table 14 provides

a comparison of the pattern of variables contributing to PCP according to ‘Performers’ (n=6)

and ‘Observers’ (n=24) samples. Table 14 contains four columns; working left to right, the

column titled ‘Category’ contains the variables identified in Sections 4.3.8 and 4.4.3 (i.e. variables

contributing toward PCP). The second column titled ‘Performer’ identifies the degree of

agreement among ‘Performers’ regarding the significance of each variable. An ‘X’ is used to

indicate one hundred percent agreement in scoring across all six ‘Performers’ and a ‘Y’ to

indicate that the same score was received from five out of the six ‘Performers’. The column was

left blank for variables below this threshold. The third column titled ‘Observer’ performs the

same function in relation to ‘Observer’ data. An ‘X’ is used to identify variables listed as

significant within the ‘Causal Path Analysis’ and a ‘Y’ is used to indicate when greater than fifty

percent of ‘Observers’ regarded the significance of the variable. The final column

‘Same/Similar/Different’ identifies the degree of similarity between ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’

data sets.

Chapter 4: Results


TABLE 14: COMPARISON OF PERFORMER AND OBSERVER PATTERNS

Category Performer

(n=6)

Observer

(n=24) Same/Similar/Different

Opportunities/

Context X X Same

Breadth of learned

skill in field X Different

Expertise learned

in field X X Same

Expertise talent in

field Y X Similar

Ideal seeking X X Same

Nurturance X Different

Purposeful X X Same

Knowledge about X Different

Understanding X X Same

Motivation Y X Similar

Subjectivizing Y Y Similar

Extract # X X Same

Curiosity/Seek

Novelty Y Different

Positive Affect Y X Similar

SES (Financial

Success) X X Same

DP2 X X Same

DP1 X Different

Intrinsic

motivators Y Different

Opinion Leader X Different

Peer-Task

Communication X Different

Support Staff

Colleagues X Different

Knowledge of

changing

environment

Y Different

Chapter 4: Results


Risk Taking X Different

Leadership X Different

Corroboration of ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ patterns in Table 14 alters the PCP profile outlined

in Section 4.3.10 in the following ways:

1. Eight variables (Opportunity/Context, Expertise Learned in Field, Ideal Seeking,

Purposeful, Understanding, Extract, SES, and DP2) are identified as the ‘Same’ in the

‘Performer’-‘Observer’ comparison. These eight variables are significant contributors to

the attainment of PCP.

2. Three variables (Expertise Talent in Field, Positive Affects, and Motivation) are

identified as ‘Similar’, but do not satisfy the criteria to be identified as the ‘Same’, in the

‘Performer-‘Observer’ comparison. These three variables may therefore play an

important role in PCP, but they are not identified at the most significant level in this

study.

3. Subjectivizing (Behavioural Preference) is identified in the ‘Performer’-‘Observer’

comparison as being an important, but it is not identified as a significant contributor to

PCP.

4. Five variables (Breadth of Learned Skill in Field, Nurturance, Knowledge About,

Intrinsic Motivators, and Peer-Task Communication) drop out of analysis. These

variables do not contribute to the attainment of PCP.

The analysis above suggests that PCP occurs when there is a confluence of twelve variables (a

core pattern of eight significant variables and four additional variables). The ‘Observer’ analysis

identifies several additional variables not contained within the ‘Performer’ analysis. These

additional variables are not examined further due to the primary role of the ‘Performer’ analysis

and the supporting role of the ‘Observer’ analysis.

Figure 5 summarises the pattern of PCP described above and presents it as a model of PCP.

Chapter 4: Results


FIGURE 5: PATTERN OF PCP (THIS STUDY)

PCP/ Socio-economic

Status

Above Average

Home life

Design Principle 2

structures

Innate Talent/ Domain

Match

Positive Affect

Amplification of affects

(Interest-excitement-

Enjoyment-joy)

Deliberate Practice

Subjectivizing

Personality

High

Motivation

Expertise learned

in field

Context

Make & take

Opportunities

Ideal Seeking/

Purposeful

Goal setting

Design Principle 2

structures (Own

Business/

Marriage)

Creative processes

Extraction &

Allocentric

Perception

Transcendent Solution

Context

Serendipitous

engagement with

domain

Understanding

Positive

affect

Figure 5 shows that the young PCPer serendipitously becomes engaged in a domain, and there are

indications that this domain matches with innate talents possessed by the young PCPer. There are also indications

that positive affects, and the amplification of affects (which in part derive from the successful application of innate

talents), encourage the development of a high level of domain specific expertise (which is likely to

be the result of a large amount of practice). The young PCPer becomes highly motivated;

however, it is unclear if obsessive or compulsive levels of motivation are involved. They are keen observers of

their environment and there are indications that they detect patterns and opportunities in their environment.

Chapter 4: Results


As their personality forms, they develop a strong preference for pursuing their own ideas and they identify, make

and take opportunities to pursue these ideas. They are not easily influenced by the opinions of others and appear

to be courageous and resistant to criticism as a result. During their early to mid-career, PCPers make or

take an opportunity which results in them becoming recognised throughout their field. Often,

they commence their own business and appear to be on an endless quest in pursuit of idealistic

ends. Whilst it is unclear what types of ends are being pursued, they are clearly highly purposeful in

achieving specific aims and their high motivation and positive affects may not only contribute toward, but also

be further reinforced by this ideal seeking and purposeful behaviour. They continue to be keen observers of

their environment, learning from everything around them and, through this learning, develop an

understanding of why they are being effective. It appears that the most successful PCPers

establish and live within organisations based on Design Principle 2 organisational structures and,

furthermore, recognise that this provides the organisational form for success. These individuals

and their organisations achieve an average to above average level of socio-economic status

(financial success) and become recognised as ‘Peak Creative Performers’ (PCPers).

4.5.2 Analysis by domain

Section 4.3.9 examined domain specific patterns identified by ‘Performers’. Causal Path Analysis

was not used to examine domain specific patterns within the ‘Observer’ data due to sample size

restrictions. For completeness, however, it is useful to identify alternative methods to

corroborate ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data for the purpose of domain specific pattern

identification. Appendix 8 contains percentages of responses by ‘Observers’ split by domain.

Tables 23, 24 and 25 compare ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data in the domains of business,

music and design respectively. The ‘Performer’ data contained in Tables 23, 24 and 25, is a

reproduction of the data contained in Table 19. The ‘Observer’ data in Tables 23, 24 and 25

reports the variables from Table 35 that have greater than 70% agreement (i.e. labelled ‘X’) and

greater than 50% agreement (i.e. labelled ‘Y’). Tables 23, 24 and 25 therefore indicate whether

‘Performer’ data and ‘Observer’ analyses yield the ‘Same’, ‘Similar’ or ‘Different’ results. Table

15 below provides a summary of this analysis.

TABLE 15: COMPARISON OF PERFORMER AND OBSERVER DOMAIN SPECIFIC

PATTERNS

Business Music Design

Opportunities afforded Same Same Same

Expertise learned in

field Same Same Same

Chapter 4: Results


Expertise talent in field Same Same

Knowledge about Same

Understanding Similar

Ideal Same Same Same

Beauty Same Same

Purpose Same Same Same

Motivation level Same Same Same

Behavioural SO Same Similar

Extract Similar

Positive affect Same Similar Same

DP1 Same

DP2 Same

Elbow Room Same

Mutual support Same Same

Set goals Same

Feedback Same

Variety Same

Communication-Peer-

task Same

Extrinsic non-

monetary Same

Domain specific patterns identified within Section 4.3.9 can now be updated (see below) using

the corroborated ‘Performer’ and ‘Observer’ data.

Business

Table 15 shows that business people:

1. Serendipitously encounter a domain which matches their innate talents.

2. Experience positive affects as a result of their work.

3. Develop high levels of expertise in their field.

4. Develop high levels of motivation.

5. Are Subjectivizers and pursue their own ideas and specific objectives.

6. May pay close attention to, and learn from, their environment.

7. Make and take opportunities which enable them to become recognised as a PCPer

within their field.

Chapter 4: Results


8. May develop an understanding of what it means to become successful and creative

in business.

9. Establish businesses based upon a DP2 organisational structures (i.e. structures

which provide staff with elbow room, mutual support and respect and peer based

communication).

10. Continue on an endless quest to pursue idealistic ends.

Music

Table 15 shows that musicians:


2. May experience positive affects from the music they play.

3. Develop high levels of musical expertise.


5. Are focused on achieving specific objectives and appear to be on a quest to pursue

idealistic ends; particularly beauty in their music.

6. Make and take opportunities which enable them to become recognised as a PCPer

within their field.

7. Develop knowledge about how to become successful and creative in the music

business.

8. Experience the prevalence and negative effects of DP1 organisational structures.

Design

Table 15 shows that designers:


2. Experience positive affects as a result of their work.

3. Develop high levels of expertise in their field.

4. Live and work in structures which provide intrinsic motivation and non-monetary

extrinsic motivation.


6. May have a preference for Subjectivizing (i.e. a preference for the pursuit of their

own ideas).

7. Appear to be on a quest to pursue idealistic ends; particularly beauty in their design

work.

Notwithstanding the subtle differences between Tables 14 and 15 (i.e. between the general

pattern of PCP and the domain specific patterns of PCP and between the three domain specific

Chapter 4: Results


patterns), it is clear that strong similarities exist. The findings of this study do not provide

evidence of the existence of domain specific patterns of PCP. Conclusions which are drawn

from this section must be tentative given the small sample sizes involved (i.e. Business people

(n=9), Musicians (n=3) and Designers (n=3)).

4.5.3 Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the present study. Peak Creative Performance (PCP)

was defined and the analysis of six ‘Performer’ case studies was corroborated with the ‘Causal

Path Analysis’ of ‘Observer’ data to yield a pattern of twelve variables which produce PCP.

The following chapter discusses the findings of the present study, contrasts these findings with

the literature, and examines the implications and contributions that are made by the study.

Chapter 5: Discussion and contributions



5.1 Introduction

Section 4.5 discussed the results emerging from this study and presented the model of PCP

developed by the study. In contrast, this chapter discusses the findings of the study, contrasts

these findings with the literature, and examines the implications and contributions that are made

by the study.

The chapter begins with a brief review of the research needs discussed in Section 1.3 and the

research aims outlined in Section 1.4. The chapter is then divided into three sections. The first

section compares the similarities and differences between the individual variables identified by

the present study and those outlined in the literature. The second section contrasts the patterns

of PCP identified by the present study with those patterns described in the literature. The third

section discusses the significance of the model of PCP developed by the present study. The

chapter closes with a chapter summary and a discussion of the theoretical and methodological

contributions made by the study.

5.2 Research needs and aims

The model of PCP outlined in Figure 5 emerged from the present study’s efforts to define PCP,

understand the relationship between the concepts of performance and creativity, identify the

pattern(s) which produce PCP, clarify the role of innate abilities, learned expertise, personality,

motivation, organisational structure and contextual influences, and to identify how each of these

variables interact to produce PCP.

The findings of the present study differ in several ways from those reported by traditional

studies of performance and creativity (i.e. quantitative psychological studies) because it pursues

different aims. Traditional studies examine different, and narrower, conceptions of performance

and creativity, and explain performance and creativity in terms of individual factors. In contrast,

this study seeks to identify the patterns which produce PCP.

Contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity do, however, pursue similar

objectives to the present study. The findings of the present study may also differ from these

contemporary systems studies because they examine a more restricted range of concepts such as

prodigiousness and creativity, and they use different systems frameworks and pattern

identification methodologies.



The findings of the present study may also differ from those reported in the literature because

the study addresses many of the research needs identified in the literature (i.e. (a) the need to

better define concepts, (b) the need to overcome the overlapping, fragmented and

compartmentalised nature of the research, (c) the need to establish an integrated framework

which examines biological, psychological, social and contextual variables, (d) the need to identify

the ways in which these variables interact to produce PCP, (e) the need to examine the various

types and levels of PCP (and the ways in which they relate to each other), (f) the need to

broaden the range of methodologies used to understand PCP (i.e. combining qualitative and

quantitative methods), (g) the need to identify key variables before engaging in more narrowly

focused research, and (h) the need to use a theoretical framework and methodology which

represents a coherent system of assumptions, concepts and methods).

5.3 Definition of PCP

The findings of the present study suggest that performance and creativity are strongly related at

the very highest levels of achievement (however, they are different in practical terms, i.e. within

the ‘normal’ range of achievement). High performance involves excellent execution and the

satisfaction of the audience and context. Creativity involves the use of novel methods to

transcend limitations. Importantly, the findings of the present study indicate that the highest

levels of performance can only be achieved by being creative. The PCPer is an individual who

has the capacity to transcend existing limitations and convince others of solutions that transcend

these limitations. PCPers redefine the rules, but do so whilst simultaneously satisfying the

context and enabling levels of execution that are superior to those which were previously

possible. This is the way in which performance and creativity are linked.

These findings are similar to the findings reported by the contemporary systems research

regarding the dual criterion of novelty and appropriateness. The concept of ‘novelty’ shares

similarities with the notion that PCP involves ‘transcendent solutions’. The concept of

‘appropriateness’ shares similarities with the PCP notions of ‘excellent execution’, ‘audience

satisfaction’ and ‘convincing others’. Moreover, the definition of PCP is consistent with the

literature which deals with the relationship between creative achievement, the ‘zeitgeist’, the

‘diffusion’ of creativity, and the ‘readiness’ of the context for change. These similarities may

largely reflect methodological commonalities between the present study and the contemporary

systems research (i.e. the use of the consensual-contextual approach). In addition, these

similarities, not only reinforce the value of establishing operational definitions of PCP (which, as

suggested in Section 2.4.8, are rarely provided in the literature), they also provide a means for

understanding what it is that PCPers do, and the ways in which their actions change the world.



The definition of PCP which is proposed by the present study differs in four ways from the

definitions which are reported in the literature: (a) the definition of PCP is established using an

empirical procedure, (b) PCP deals is a broader concept than is traditionally examined in the

literature, (c) the definition of PCP uses a more precise conceptualisation of the environment

than has been used by contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity, and (d)

the definition developed by the present study provides a more nuanced description of how

PCPers change the world.

These differences are important for several reasons. Few performance and creativity studies

provide specific definitions, and even fewer offer the empirical basis on which definitions are

based. By empirically defining PCP, the present study overcomes many of the difficulties and

complications associated with previous definitions of performance and creativity (see Section

2.4.8). Moreover, the definition developed by the present study is precise enough to prevent

direct comparisons being made with studies which examine different concepts. The definition of

PCP developed by the present study provides, therefore, a more useful means for systematically

developing knowledge about the patterns producing performance and creativity than has

previously been the available.

By defining the broader concept of PCP, the present study provides a framework which

integrates and relates existing definitions of performance, creativity and expertise. This feature

of the study is important for a number of reasons. There have been few attempts in the

literature to synthesise existing definitions. Rather than adding clarification, many previous

efforts to establish definitions of performance and creativity appear to have added to the

proliferation of concepts which exist. The definition of PCP developed by the present study,

therefore, better enables interdisciplinary research to be conducted, and comparisons to be

made between the findings of studies which utilise different terminologies but functionally

similar concepts. In addition to these cross-disciplinary issues, there is also tendency within the

literature to treat the concepts of performance and creativity as separate constructs which

should be studied separately. For instance, even within the contemporary systems literature,

phenomena such as ‘prodigiousness’ and ‘creativity’ are conceptualised differently. In many

cases the separation of concepts is due to distinctions which are made between the two notions;

‘creativity as potential’ and ‘creativity as authentic achievement’. The concept of PCP transcends

both of these distinctions. The present study, not only examines the relationship between

performance and creativity, it also examines the ways that ‘potential’ contributes to

‘achievement’. Moreover, the present study examines the ways that ‘potential’ and ‘creative

achievement’ ultimately contribute to the attainment of the highest levels of human

accomplishment (i.e. PCP).



By using the OST conceptualisation of the environment, the present study is able to address a

key research need (i.e. Sections 2.3 and 2.13 argue that the concepts of ‘context’ and ‘domain’

are often poorly defined). Without clearly defining the environment, it is difficult to establish a

contextually based definition of PCP. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how the PCPer and

their environment co-evolve (i.e. what influences what?), how the PCPer and their environment

can be delineated, and how the characteristics of each can be understood. The present study

extends the contemporary systems research examining prodigiousness and creativity by

introducing a series of established concepts which precisely define the environment (i.e. ‘the

relevant environment’, ‘the casual texture’ of different environmental types, ‘environmental

dynamics and change’, ‘directive correlation’, and a typology of ‘adaptive’ and ‘maladaptive’

responses to the environment) and trace the co-evolution of the PCPer and their environment.

The question of methodology extends beyond the definition of PCP, but is related to it. By

using established OST concepts and methods to define the environment and examine the

system-in-environment, the present study was able to go beyond the description of performers

and creators as ‘masters’ and ‘makers’, and their works as being ‘novel and appropriate’. In

contrast, the present study provides a detailed description of the ways that PCPers use their

expertise to ‘execute well’, ‘satisfy their audiences’, and ‘convince others’ of methods which

‘transcend limitations’ and deliver even higher levels of performance and audience satisfaction.

It is envisaged that this more nuanced understanding of what it is that PCPers do, and how they

do it, will enable the present study to develop more useful applications than have previously

been available.

5.4 Key variables contributing to PCP

Figure 5 presents the findings of the present study as a model of PCP which contains a pattern

of twelve biological, psychological, social and contextual variables. Table 16 below compares the

variables identified in Figure 5 with those that are reported in the literature. The column titled

‘Variables identified by the present study’, contains the variables from Table 14 that were

identified as producing PCP. The column titled ‘Variables identified by the literature’, contains

the variables from Appendix 9 that contribute to PCP (to avoid duplication, section references

for each of these variables have not been reproduced in Table 16). The notation ‘not identified

in Table 14’, is used where the variables which were identified in the literature align with

variables that were examined in the present study, but were not identified in the pattern

producing PCP outlined in Table 14. Major concepts are formatted in standard text, and sub

concepts are formatted in italics. The column titled ‘Similar/Different’ identifies the similarities

and differences between the findings of the present study and those reported in the literature.



As discussed in Chapter 3, the variables contained in the column titled ‘Variables identified by

the present study’, are derived from ‘Open Systems Theory’ (OST). These variables are defined

in Chapter 3 and throughout the OST literature. In contrast, as discussed in Sections 1.2

through 1.5, the variables contained in the column titled ‘Variables identified by the literature’

refer to an eclectic and multi-disciplinary body of literature that has not previously been viewed

as a single field of inquiry. Consequently, there is a one to many relationship between the

‘Variables identified by the present study’ and those ‘Variables identified by the literature’.

Moreover, as discussed in Sections 1.2 through 1.5, there are various definitional difficulties

associated with the variables contained in the latter column. Table 16 was constructed,

therefore, by placing variables which deal with the same ‘functional concept’ on the same row.

This procedure is consistent with the process of ‘structural corroboration’ outlined in Appendix

10 and Chapter 3 and enables appropriate comparison of the similarities and differences

between the ‘Variables identified by the present study’ and the ‘Variables identified by the

literature’.

TABLE 16: COMPARISON OF VARIABLES (THIS STUDY AND THE LITERATURE)

Variables identified

by the present study

Variables identified by the literature

Similar/Different


(SES) of family of

origin (not identified in

Table 14)

1. Professional/ upper middle class

parents

2. Stimulating childhood environment

Different


field

Expertise and expert performance

Non transferability of expertise

Characteristic adaptions

Deliberate practice

Ten years or 10,000 hours

Early/childhood start

Neural plasticity

Physiological adaption

Deep brain learning

Perceptual attunement

Pattern recognition and chunking

Canalized development

Expertise reducing creativity

Similar



Expertise enhancing creativity

Automatization

Boundary breaking

Expertise talent in field Innate ability

Domain specific ability

Brain modularity and distributed function

Genetics

Prolonged cortical development

Prenatal brain injury and compensatory

activity

Emergenesis

Prodigiousness

Savantism

Pathologies of superiority

Independence of abilities

Rapid rate of learning

Socio-cultural stimulation

Similar

Level of functioning:

Ideal seeking

Different


Purposeful

Aim to change the world

Emergence of purposes

Interplay of a complex combination of

influences (i.e. knowledge, purpose and affects)

Purpose at young age

Self-control

Delay of gratification

Long term effort

Problem finding

Emergence of insight

Similar


Goal setting (not

identified in Table 14)

Goal setting (extensive literature

discussed in Appendix 9)

Different

Understanding Different

Motivation Obsessive motivation

Perseverance

Similar



The motivation complex

Interplay of growth and deficit needs

Early trauma and parental loss (see below)

Intrinsic motivation

Psychoanalytic drive and compensatory effects

Crystalizing experiences

Addiction

Genetic predisposition- shortage of dopamine

receptors (DRD2 allele)

Reinforcement

Behavioural SO Independence

Distinct personality

Paradoxical personality

Complex interaction of genetic and

environmental determinants

Non-conformity

Stimulus freedom

Resilience

Marginality

Endure resistance and psychological pain

Sub-clinical psychoticism

Early trauma and parental loss (resilience,

compensatory, unconventional and psychoticism

effects)

Emotional dysregulation

Dopamine-serotonin balance

DRD2 allele

Similar

Behavioural IE (not


Externalizing personality

Sensation seeking

Risk taking

Different

Abstraction (not


Creative processes

Insight

Combinatory play

Remote association

Different



Analogical thinking

Reinforcement histories and memory traces

Cognitive mobility

Sublimation

Selective retention

Hemispheric oscillation

Divergent thinking

Bisociation

Janusian thinking

Imaginary and cognitive play

Mindfulness

Master and Maker

Extraction Allocentric perception

Problem finding

Cross domain expertise

Networks of enterprise

Vertical and lateral thinking

Technology brokering

Neurological patterning

Paradigm blindness

Functional fixedness and flexibility

Taken for granted assumptions

Orders of similarity and difference

Similar

Positive affect Interest-excitement and approach/

exploratory behaviour

Enjoyment-joy and task persistence


Developing skills

Rage to master

Moderate negative affects

Play activity

Similar

Negative affect (not


Negative affects

Amplification of drive signal

Amplification of negative affects

Different



Psychosomatic hypoglycaemic fatigue’


(SES) (Organisation)

Different

Design principle 2 Design principle 2

Organic structures

Composition and structure of high performing

and creative teams

Nurturing parenting style

Flow conditions

Similar

Design principle 1 (not


Negative impact of Design Principle 1

structures

Different


(not identified in Table

14)

Mutual support and respect

Supportive social contexts

Different

Group dynamics:

Creative working mode

(not identified in Table

14)

Positive group dynamics (summarising

characteristics of high performing

teams)

Adaptive cultures

Creative working mode

Different

Relevant concepts used

in this study are:

Breadth of skills and

Expertise (not


Innate ability

General intelligence

Domain general ability

Genetics

Heredity and regression to the mean

Neural efficiency and configuration

Electro-chemical activity

Glucose consumption

Brain integration

Omnibus prodigies

J shaped distribution of eminence

Lifespan development—asymptotic potential

Different


(Monetary and Non-

Monetary) (not


Extrinsic motivation Different



Opportunities/ context Contextual factors

Creative contexts

Well-developed domains

War, political and religious turmoil

Role models

Master teacher

Technology and paradigm change cycles

Turbulent field- autochthonous processes

Self-organised criticality- punctuated

equilibrium—edge of chaos—avalanches

Gales of creative destruction

Playful/serendipitous introduction to domain

Match of abilities and domain-Brunswick

symmetry

Successful intelligence

Zeitgeist

Affordances and effectivities

Fitness landscape

Evolutionary niche

Structural coupling

Selective affinity

Serendipity, chance, accident

Fruitful asynchrony

Similar

Table 16 shows that there are nine similarities between the findings of the present study and

those reported in the literature:

1. The present study finds that young PCPers display an innate talent for a particular

domain. The literature suggests that various innate talents exist, and that such

talents are genetically based. The similarity between these findings provides support

for the existence of innate talents and highlights the importance of accurately

identifying and understanding these talents early in life. Moreover, as discussed in

more detail below, innate talents also appear to be the basis on which domain

specific expertise develops. Innate talents may, therefore, place constraints on the

achievements of individuals who engage in careers which do not align with their

talents.



2. The present study finds that PCPers experience positive affects. The literature

suggests that positive affects flow from the successful use of innate talents and that

it is the amplification of these positive affects which underpin the high levels of

motivation which are associated with performance and creativity. The similarities

between these findings confirms the central role played by positive affects (i.e.

interest, excitement and joy) in PCP. They reinforce the importance of early

engagement in domains which match with innate talents, and they provide

important insights into the processes which underpin the development of PCPer

motivation; one of the most well documented, yet least understood variables

contributing to PCP.

3. The present study finds that young PCPers develop high levels of learned domain

specific expertise. The literature shows that expertise is the result of deliberate

practice (particularly practice that is in engaged in from a young age), and that

engagement in deliberate practice is underpinned by the amplification of positive

affects. The corroboration of these findings is important because it provides

support for the ‘Expertise paradigm’ of PCP, in favour of the ‘General Intelligence

paradigm’ of PCP. By reinforcing the ‘Expertise paradigm’ of PCP, the present

study contributes to the growing body of literature which is encouraging a shift

away from the established explanation for performance and creativity (i.e. the

‘General Intelligence paradigm’). Most importantly, the similarities between the

findings of the present study and those reported in the literature, provides a better

understanding of the ways in which expertise develops in PCPers (i.e. the

relationship between innate talents, positive affects, deliberate practice and the

development of expertise).

4. The present study finds that PCPers develop high levels of motivation as their

expertise and positive affects grow. This finding is consistent with a well-

established body of research which reports that performers and creators possess

high levels of motivation. The similarity between these findings, not only confirms

the central role of high motivation in PCP, it also provides insights into the

mechanisms and processes which underpin the development of this well

documented but poorly understood aspect of PCP.

5. The present study finds that PCPers develop a distinctive ‘Subjectivizing’

personality throughout adolescence and early adulthood. This means that PCPers

prefer to pursue their own ideas. These findings are similar to those reported in the

literature in relation to the personality trait of ‘independence’ (however the concept

of ‘Subjectivizing’; the behavioural preference used in the present study, represents

a different, and broader, construct). These similarities, not only resolve the

confusion which exists regarding the paradoxical nature of the PCPer personality,



they also confirm which aspects of personality make the most significant

contribution to PCP. This is important because it provides the first steps toward

understanding how the PCPer personality develops and the ways in which

personality actually contributes to the development of PCP.

6. The present study finds that PCPers are ‘Purposeful’ individuals who work towards

the attainment of specific long term ends. The literature discusses the importance

of goals, the emergence of purposes and the self-control which is displayed by

PCPers in their quest to attain various ends. The similarities between these findings,

not only confirms the important role played by purposeful behaviour in PCP, they

also show that talent, expertise, and high motivation are insufficient on their own.

Without the guidance and focus provided by purposeful behaviour, PCP may not

be achieved. Moreover, these similarities shed light on the mechanisms which

underpin the development of purposeful behaviour (i.e. the emergence of purposes,

the interplay of knowledge, purpose and affects, and the role of organisational

structures). Identification of these mechanisms is important because it is needed to

develop practical applications which may foster the development of PCP.

7. The present study finds that PCPers pay close attention to their environment, and

that they learn from, and detect the patterns and opportunities which are afforded

by their environment. This finding reinforces the results reported by a small and

eclectic series of studies examining the ways that PCPers find problems and

perceive similarities and differences; particularly those which cross domains. It is

likely that the similarity between these findings reflects commonalities between the

research concepts and assumptions used (i.e. viewing creative insight from the

perspective of learning by ‘extracting’ information from the environment. In

contrast the dominant view held within the literature views creative insight as the

product of ‘abstract’ intellectual processes). The findings of the present study offer,

therefore, an important and potentially fruitful perspective. They challenge the

most widely accepted explanation for creative insight. They remove the mystique

which surrounds the processes involved in the development of creative insights.

They establish a basis upon which the processes of creative insight may be

understood more objectively. In addition, they shed light on the ways in which the

processes which underpin creative insight may be related to other variables, such as

the development of expertise.

8. The present study shows that PCPers make and take opportunities which result in:

(a) a fruitful asynchrony between their ‘effectivities’ and the ‘affordances’ offered by

their environment, (b) the development of creative work which is, not only

appropriate to the context, but also regarded as novel, because it transcends

existing boundaries and constraints, and (c) the PCPer becoming recognised by



other experts in the domain. There are strong similarities between these findings

and those reported by contemporary systems literature examining prodigiousness

and creativity. These similarities reinforce the role that contextual factors play in

PCP, and emphasise the need to define, and understand, PCP from a contextual

perspective. In addition, these similarities challenge traditional conceptions of

performance and creativity (i.e. quantitative psychological studies which emphasise

endogenous characteristics). Moreover, the findings of the present study are

important because they encourage research and practice which seeks to understand

the ways in which the lives of PCPers unfold, and the precise ways in which PCPers

co-evolve with their environment. Such an approach may offer a fruitful

perspective for future PCP research.

9. The present study finds that PCPers live and work within ‘Design Principle 2’

organisational structures during adolescence and adulthood. This finding is similar

to those reported in an eclectic range of studies (i.e. studies examining topics as

diverse as the structure and functioning of high performing and creative teams, the

parenting styles used by PCPer families, and the governance of the educational

institutions which PCPers attend). The alignment between these findings supports

the view that individuals who have responsibility for the coordination and control

of their own lives, and who enable this to occur in the lives of others, are the

individuals who are most likely to become PCPers. The findings of the present

study are important because they provide a comparison of the structure and

functioning of social relationships across a diverse range of settings. Such

comparisons have not previously been possible. By establishing a common

framework of concepts by which various aspects of the PCPer’s life can be

examined (i.e. home life, school, mentoring relationships, professional networks

and organisational functioning), the ‘Design Principles’ introduce the possibility

that the underlying organisational form which is associated with PCP may be

identified.

Table 16 also lists twelve differences between the findings of the present study and those

reported in the literature:

1. The literature discusses several variables that were not examined by the present

study (i.e. parental characteristics, genetic influences such as the DRD2 allele,

ACTH hormone, CREB protein, neurological influences such as brain modularity

and the influence of deliberate practice has on neurological development,

developmental influences such as early parental death, schooling and mentoring,

and contextual influences such as asynchrony, marginality and resistance to creative

works). The present study followed the recommendations of Feldman et al. (1994)



and sought to identify the ‘key’ variables producing PCP. It was envisaged that, the

examination of a broader range of influences (particularly many of the sub-variables

identified in the literature) may be the focus of future research studies (i.e.

following confirmation of the ‘key’ variables which produce PCP). The approach

adopted by the present study is important because the performance and creativity

literature has not been able to confirm which variables are the most important

contributors to PCP, nor has this literature been able to provide an adequate

explanation for the attainment of PCP.

2. The present study identifies ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour (i.e. the quest to pursue

endlessly approachable yet unattainable ends), as being an important contributor to

PCP. This finding contrasts with the emphasis that the literature places on ‘Goal

Setting’ and ‘Goal Seeking’ behaviour. The difference between these findings may

be due to the present study’s usage of OST as a theoretical framework (i.e. OST

provides the ability to conceptualise and distinguish between three levels of

functioning; ‘Goal Seeking’, ‘Purposeful and ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour). Whilst the

literature does discuss longer term purposes, this literature is confined to a relatively

small number of studies, and the concepts which are used in these studies are not

well defined. The differences between the findings of the present study and those

reported in the literature, are important, because it is clear that PCPers do pursue

long term aims, however, it is not well understood how and why these aims

develop, or, the role that they play in the attainment of PCP. Moreover, without the

use of a theoretical framework which conceptualises higher levels of functioning, it

is difficult for researchers to adequately understand the nature of PCPer aims (i.e.

the understanding of PCPer aims is limited by the lens of ‘Goal Seeking’ and ‘Goal

Setting’). By confirming that PCPers engage in ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour, the

present study shows that PCPers operate at the highest level of human functioning.

This is important because, in contrast to ‘Goal Setting-Seeking’ behaviour, high

level functioning may develop and contribute to PCP in vastly different ways.

3. The present study examined several types of PCPer knowledge, and identified

‘Understanding’ (i.e. being able to produce creative work and knowing why that

work was successful) as being an important contributor to PCP. There are some

similarities between this finding and concepts such as ‘Successful Intelligence’,

however, there are relatively few concepts described in the literature which examine

the relationship between ‘type of knowledge’ and PCP. It is likely, then, that the

differences between the findings of the present study and those reported in the

literature are the result of differences in the theoretical frameworks used (i.e. the

degree to which differing ‘types of knowledge’ are reflected by concepts in the

literature such as learning, intelligence, wisdom or expertise). Notwithstanding this



explanation, the findings of the present study are important because they suggest

that PCPers act deliberately and possess an awareness of their actions and the

reasons why they are effective. This finding provides less support for the view that

PCP is serendipitous and occurs without PCPer consciousness or intentionality.

The differences between these two depictions are also important because they have

implications for the degree to which practical strategies can be developed to

facilitate the attainment of PCP.

4. Notwithstanding the similarities which exist between the findings of the present

study and the literature regarding the PCPer personality, several differences also

exist. The literature suggests that PCPers possess an ‘Externalizing’ behavioural

preference, and ‘Sensation Seeking’ and ‘Risk Taking’ personality traits. Whilst the

present study recognises that PCPers are individuals who influence their

environment, and change the world by virtue of their creative work, the study does

not find any evidence to support the presence of ‘Externalizing’ behavioural

preferences, ‘Risk Taking’ or ‘Sensation Seeking’ personality traits. The relatively

modest scope and scale of the present study may account for the differences

between these findings, and further research may be needed to confirm these

differences. Nevertheless, these differences are important because creative

individuals have historically been characterised, perhaps romantically, as impulsive

risk takers. If PCPers are, however, purely interested in pursuing their own goals,

and prefer a more measured approach to risk taking and the adoption of novel

ideas, the findings of the present study provide a very different characterisation of

the highest levels of human performance and creativity. Importantly, this alternative

view implies that efforts to foster performance and creativity will be more effective

if, rather than implementing policies designed to support entrepreneurship,

individuals with strong preferences for pursuing their own ideas are identified, and

interventions are focused on variables such as matching the innate talents of these

individuals to domains, bolstering the positive affects that they experience, the

development of expertise and encouraging careful observation of the environment.

5. As discussed above, the findings of the present study reinforce the view that

creative insight is the result of intense observation of the environment. This finding

challenges the view that creative insight is the product of abstract intellectual

processes (i.e. the prevailing view). Possible explanations for these differences, and

the importance of these findings, were also discussed above.

6. Section A 9.6.3 suggests that the interaction between positive and negative affects

plays an important role in PCP. This interaction is also reported in the

psychoanalytic and humanistic accounts of PCPer motivation. The present study

confirms the contribution of ‘Positive Affects’, however it does not identify any



relationship between ‘Negative Affects’ and PCP. The difference between these

findings may be due to the relatively modest scale and scope of the present study,

and larger scale studies may be needed to confirm these differences. The findings of

the present study are important, not only because they clarify a longstanding debate

between humanistic and psychoanalytic accounts of performance and creativity,

they also offer a more positive and accessible account of PCP (i.e. one which is

underpinned by the matching of innate talents with the requirements of a domain

and the subsequent amplification of positive affects, rather than one which is reliant

upon sub-clinical psychoticism, early parental death, negative affects and the

compensatory efforts which result from these affects). This more positive account

of PCP provides, therefore, a more fertile basis upon which interventions and

strategies which foster the development of PCP may be developed.

7. There is limited discussion about PCPer wealth in the literature. The present study

found that PCPers achieve above average levels of financial success (measured

using the variable ‘Socio-economic Status’). Notwithstanding the seemingly obvious

nature of this finding, this difference indicates a gap within the literature which may

have implications for the subjective wellbeing of PCPers. In addition, factors which

influence subjective wellbeing (i.e. Socio-economic Status, Mental Health, Physical

Health, Marital Stability and Optimal Experience) may be important to the study of

PCP because they may have an impact on the definition of PCP (i.e. the degree to

which PCP should be defined in terms of success more broadly), and may also

influence the sustainability of PCP.

8. Section A 9.7.3 identified a negative relationship between ‘Design Principle 1’

(DP1) organisational structures and PCP, and a positive relationship between

‘Design Principle 2’ (DP2) organisational structures and PCP. The present study

reinforced the positive relationship between DP2 structures and PCP, however, the

study did not identify the existence of any relationship between DP1 structures and

PCP. The ‘Performer’ analysis in the present study did, however, identify a

relationship between DP1 structures, ‘Ideal Seeking’, ‘Risk Taking’ and

‘Leadership’. The negative relationship between DP1 and ‘Risk Taking’ was

theoretically predicted, however, the relationships with ‘Ideal Seeking’ and

‘Leadership’ were not expected. Additional larger scale studies may, therefore, be

required to confirm the relationship between DP1 structures and PCP. The

importance of identifying the relationship between ‘Design Principles’ and PCP has

already been discussed above.

9. Sections 2.9 and 2.10 discuss the contribution that supportive social contexts and

mutually supportive and respectful relationships make toward PCP. There is also a

small body of literature which suggests that the provision of support during critical



periods (i.e. during the introduction of creative works, when starting a business, and

during times of hardship) is an important contributor to the achievement of PCP.

In contrast, the present study did not identify any relationship between the six

intrinsic motivators discussed in Appendix 10 (i.e. ‘Mutual Support and Respect’)

and PCP. Appendix 10 does, however; examine a large body of literature which

suggested that ‘Design Principle 2’ structures produce maximal levels of ‘Mutual

Support and Respect’. The absence of ‘Mutual Support and Respect’ from the

findings of the present study (and the presence of DP2) may not, therefore, be an

indicator that fundamental differences exist between the two sets of findings.

Identification of the ways in which the various intrinsic motivators contribute to

PCP is desirable, because this introduces the possibility that a more nuanced

understanding of the mechanisms by which DP2 structures contribute to PCP may

be achieved. The findings of the present study in relation to DP2 structures are

important, however, because they reinforce the notion that supportive relationships

play an important role in PCP. Further research may be needed, however, to clarify

the paradoxical nature of the findings (i.e. that supportive parenting, and early

parental death and trauma are both positively related to PCP).

10. Section A 9.7.2 of the literature review identifies several positive group dynamics

associated with high performing teams, adaptive organisational cultures, and PCP.

In contrast, the present study did not identify any relationship between group

dynamics (i.e. ‘Dependency’, ‘Fight/Flight’, or ‘Creative Working Mode’) and PCP.

In a similar manner to the previous discussion regarding supportive relationships,

Sections 2.13.12 and 2.13.14 suggest that ‘DP2’ structures produce positive group

dynamics (i.e. the ‘Creative Working Mode’). For the same reasons that have been

discussed above (see ‘Mutual Support and Respect’), the absence of findings

regarding group dynamics from the present study may not, therefore, be an

indicator that there are fundamental differences between the findings of the present

study and those reported in the literature.

11. A small body of literature (see Section A 9.6.3) examines the interaction between

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and their contribution to PCPer motivation. The

present study did not identify any relationship between ‘Extrinsic Motivators’ (i.e.

monetary or non-monetary) and PCP. Additional larger scale studies may,

therefore, be required to confirm the relationship between intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, and PCP.

12. Appendix 9 reviews the general intelligence literature; the oldest and most

significant body of literature examining PCP. The present study did not identify any

relationship between ‘Breadth of Skills’ and PCP, but it did identify a relationship

between domain specific talents, domain specific expertise (‘Expertise Talent in



Field’ and ‘Expertise Learned in Field’) and PCP. The differences between these

findings may be due differences in research design, or the theoretical frameworks

and concepts used. Typically intelligence studies confine their focus to the

identification of the ways in which general intelligence relates to various aspects of

performance or creativity. In contrast, the present study examines the ways in

which multiple variables work together as a pattern to produce PCP.

Notwithstanding the definitional difficulties associated with the concept of

intelligence, these studies typically examine the notion of the intelligence quotient (a

domain general concept). In contrast, the present study examined a different set of

concepts (i.e. talents, skills and expertise). The findings of the present study are

important, however, because they clearly show that PCP is underpinned by domain

specific talents and expertise rather than domain general abilities such as general

intelligence. These findings provide support for the relatively new ‘Expertise and

Expert Performance’ paradigm of PCP (see Appendix 9) and challenge the

established ‘General Intelligence’ paradigm of PCP (see Appendix 9). It is this

aspect of the findings, which may have the greatest implications for practical

application. The ‘General Intelligence’ paradigm of PCP permeates every aspect of

society, from the popular beliefs which exist about intelligence, to the use of

standardised testing in educational institutions and business organisations. The

findings of the present study (in conjunction with the emerging expertise, practical

intelligence and multiple intelligence research) suggest that fundamental changes to

these established practices and beliefs may be warranted.

5.5 Patterns producing PCP

The discussion above is limited to the comparison of individual variables. The aim of the

present study, however, extends beyond the identification of individual variables, and includes

the examination of the pattern(s) which produce PCP. It is appropriate, therefore, to compare

the PCP pattern identified by the present study (i.e. as presented in Table 14 and Figure 5) with

the patterns of PCP outlined in the literature (i.e. the patterns reported by the complexity,

contemporary systems, and bio-psycho-social literature; Appendix 9).

Table 17 below compares the patterns identified in Appendix 9 with the pattern producing PCP

identified by the present study. Methodological limitations associated with the present study (see

Section 3.8), however, mean that the pattern of PCP identified in Table 16 requires some

interpretation in order to describe the pattern sequence. Similarly, consolidation of the findings

from the various studies in Appendix 9 (each utilising different units of analysis and



methodological approaches) requires interpretation in order to summarise these findings into a

singular pattern for comparison purposes.

The two patterns presented in Table 17 represent a sequence, or configuration of variables. In

contrast to the procedure adopted for the comparison of individual variables in Table 16,

comparisons between the two patterns in Table 17 requires that one entire series is contrasted

with another. This form of analysis seeks to identify similarities and differences between the

pattern sequences rather than similarities and differences between the individual variables within

those sequences.

TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF PATTERNS OF PCP (THIS STUDY AND LITERATURE)

Pattern identified by the literature

1. The young PCPer possesses genetic

endowments (i.e. ACTH, CREB protein,

bipolar activity, inter-hemispheric

coordination and micro neuronal

development, high general intelligence and

domain specific talents).

2. He or she is born as the youngest child of

a middle class-professional family.

3. The young PCPer serendipitously

discovers that he or she has an innate

talent for a particular domain.

4. Interest (positive affect) in the domain

develops and exploratory behaviour

occurs.

5. The PCPer grows up in a stimulating and

supportive family environment. Creativity

and achievement are encouraged.

6. The young PCPer begins to enjoy the

domain (i.e. experience positive affects) as

a result of the successful application of his

or her innate abilities.

7. The young PCPer experiences early

parental death and this creates a series of

compensatory effects.

12. The young PCPer frequently moves to the

centre of the domain activity.

13. He or she develops networks of enterprise

and is regarded as marginal and

asynchronous with the domain.

14. The PCPer develops a fortress mentality

to protect themselves against the

resistance to their new ideas.

15. The PCPer develops an obsessive level of

motivation (the result of a complex range

of influences).

16. He or she is supported by a spouse, family

and friends.

17. The PCPer engages in allocentric

perception of the environment and detects

patterns in the domain.

18. The PCPer achieves a creative insight

(supported by allocentric perception and

cognitive processes such as cognitive

mobility, field independence, lateral

thinking and remote association).

19. His or her insights are embraced by a

supportive political climate, task

environment and extended social field.



8. He or she is mentored by a master

teacher.

9. The young PCPer engages in substantial

amounts of deliberate practice and

becomes intensively engaged in the

domain for a sustained period of time.

10. By early adulthood, the expertise of the

PCPer reaches the world class level.

11. The maturing PCPer develops a distinctive

yet paradoxical personality (marked by

characteristics such as ego-strength, self-

control, delay of gratification, androgyny,

risk taking, stimulus freedom and

tolerance of ambiguity).

20. The PCPer achieves a match between his

or her skills and the requirements of the

domain. This is described as fruitful

asynchrony.

21. The individual is subsequently recognised

by experts in the domain as a PCPer who

has made a novel and appropriate

contribution.

Pattern identified by the present study

1. The young PCPer serendipitously

becomes engaged with a domain.

2. The requirements of the domain match

the young PCPers innate talents.

3. The young PCPer experiences positive

affects.

4. He or she develops a high level of domain

specific expertise.

5. The PCPer becomes highly motivated.

6. The PCPer develops a strong preference

for pursuing his or her own ideas and is

not easily influenced by the opinions of

others.

7. The PCPer displays purposeful and ideal

seeking behaviour. They strive toward

specific long term aims and appear to be

on an endless quest.

8. The PCPer is a keen observer of the

environment and learns from everything

around them.

9. He or she makes and takes opportunities

and produces creative works (i.e. works

which transcend existing boundaries). The

PCPer is subsequently recognised by

experts in the domain.

10. Often, the PCPer establishes a business,

and subsequently lives and works in

‘Design Principle 2’ organisational

structures.

11. The PCPer develops an understanding of

why he or she has become successful and

achieves an average to above average level

of ‘Socio-economic Status’

There are six similarities between the two patterns presented in Table 17.

1. The young PCP grows up in a supportive environment,

2. They become serendipitously engaged in a domain that matches with their talents,

3. They experience positive affects as a result of successfully exercising their talents,



4. They develop high levels of expertise, a strong independent personality and a high

level of motivation,

5. They keenly observe, and detect patterns in their environment,

6. The PCPer is recognised by experts in their domain as making a creative

contribution.

The similarities which exist between the two patterns presented in Table 17 may be explained in

two ways. Firstly, both pattern sequences include several variables which are well established in

the PCP literature (i.e. talents, expertise, personality and motivation). It is perhaps not surprising

that these variables are presented in a similar order in both of the patterns outlined in Table 17.

Secondly, the literature review in Appendix 9 contains several emerging perspectives (i.e. the

serendipitous engagement in a domain, and the detection of patterns in the environment). These

perspectives are not well documented in the traditional performance and creativity literature (i.e.

the quantitative psychological literature), but they have been identified by a small number of

contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity. The present study shares several

theoretical and methodological similarities with these studies (i.e. the use of a systems approach

to identify patterns). Consequently, it is likely that both patterns outlined in Table 17 contain

similar variables.

The similarities between the two patterns presented in Table 17 are important, not only because

they illustrate the limitations associated with traditional studies of performance and creativity,

they also reinforce the value of using systems and contextual approaches to examine PCP.

Moreover, the similarities between the two patterns illustrates the importance of understanding

PCP as a series, sequence, or configuration of variables, rather than as a set of isolated factors.

The six similarities above are important because they suggest that, for the young PCPer, the

presence of a supportive childhood environment provides the opportunities needed to

serendipitously discover a domain which matches their talents, and that it is this matching of

talents and domain which triggers positive affects, high levels of motivation, and the

development of expertise. Perhaps, the most important implications, however, are those which

relate to the ‘Expertise and Expert Performance’ paradigm of PCP. The six similarities above

reinforce the need to understand PCP in terms of domain specific talents and domain specific

expertise. Keen observation of the environment and the detection of domain specific patterns

also form an important aspect of this understanding of PCP. As discussed above, this

understanding of PCP has wide ranging implications for policy and practice.

There are four differences between the two pattern presented in Table 17:

1. The present study used an established theoretical framework and methodology to

identify a pattern of PCP among twelve biological, psychological, social and contextual



variables. Increasingly, the confluence studies reviewed in Appendix 9 are seeking to

achieve this same objective (Feldman et al., 1994; Heller, 2013), however, the lack of an

integrating theoretical framework means that these studies are often confined to the

examination of patterns of individual factors that are associated with PCP, rather than

the identification of systemic patterns which produce PCP. The importance of

understanding the sequence, or configuration, of the patterns producing PCP and the

theoretical relationships between the variables within those patterns has been discussed

above.

2. The present study was designed to provide an understandable overview of the ‘key

variables’ contributing toward PCP. The study does not attempt to examine genetic,

neurological or developmental sub-variables. In contrast, the confluence studies

reviewed in Appendix 9 examine a complex range of variables but fail to systematically

identify the ‘key’ variables producing PCP. The importance of identifying and

confirming the ‘key’ variables producing PCP, before conducting more detailed

research, has been discussed above.

3. The present study, is a study of adult PCPers and establishes an empirically based

definition of PCP. Many confluence studies in Appendix 9 do not effectively define

their research topic, and often examine different phenomena (such as creative insight

and creativity). The importance and implications of empirically defining PCP were

discussed in Section 5.3 above.

4. Notwithstanding their similarities, the two patterns outlined in Table 17 represent two

different portraits of PCP. The pattern drawn from Appendix 9 suggests that PCP is

the result of: (a) positive and supportive interpersonal relationships, (b) motivation

based upon the interplay between positive and negative affects and psychoanalytic and

humanistic influences, (c) general intelligence, (d) the presence of a distinctive yet

paradoxical personality, (e) goal setting behaviour, (f) learning by abstract means, and

(g) the achievement of creative insight via cognitive processes. In contrast, the pattern

identified by the present study suggests that PCP is the result of: (a) living and working

in ‘Design Principle 2’ organisational structures, (b) purely positive affects, (c) the

development of domain specific expertise, (d) the presence of ‘Subjectivizing’

behavioural preferences, (e) ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour, (f) ‘Allocentric’ perception of the

environment, and (g) the making and taking of opportunities afforded by the

environment. It is possible that the differences between these two portraits of PCP may

be due to fundamental differences in the concepts and assumptions which used to

derive each portrait. The former using the philosophy of ‘Idealism’ and ‘Class-Generic’

concepts, the latter using the philosophy of ‘Realism’ and ‘Serial-Genetic’ concepts. As

described by Emery (1999a) in Section 1.3, such choices have significant implications

for the way in which we understand what PCP is, and how it occurs. The pattern of



PCP identified by the present study is important because, in contrast to previous

studies, it describes the sequence of influences and events which occur in each PCPers

life. It may be regarded, therefore, as the DNA of PCP which, if it can be understood

and sequenced, can be used to foster the development of PCP.

5.6 Model of PCP

Sections 5.4 and 5.5 compared the variables and patterns identified by the present study with

those reported in the literature and discussed the implications of the similarities and differences

between them. In addition to the identification of the variables and patterns producing PCP, the

present study developed a model of PCP (see Figure 5). This model is of importance for at least

four reasons: (a) it examines a new topic (i.e. PCP), (b) it provides a unique way of explaining

performance and creativity, (c) it provides new understandings regarding the variables involved,

and (d) it establishes a platform which enables deeper understandings to be gained about the

patterns which produce PCP. This section discusses each of these contributions. Figure 5 is re-

presented below for ease of reference in relation to this discussion.

5.6.1 Explaining PCP

Figure 5 below represents the first model of PCP. This is important because previous studies of

performance and creativity did not examine, or provide an explanation for, the phenomenon

which is of most practical relevance in business, sport, science, politics and the arts (i.e. PCP: the

highest levels of human performance). Typically such studies have examined various sub-

components of PCP, like intelligence, creative insight or expertise. Few of these concepts

represent, however, the outcomes that are of practical value. In contrast, the model of PCP

presented in Figure 5 is of immediate relevance to: (a) businesses or sporting organisations that

are seeking to enhance performance or innovation, (b) scientific groups that are looking to

increase the change of breakthrough discoveries, and (c) policy makers who are seeking to more

effectively direct educational expenditure. For instance, the findings outlined in Figure 5 suggest

that corporations may enhance performance and creativity by changing their organisational

structures (from DP1 to DP2) and by recruiting individuals who: (a) experience positive affects

in their work, (b) have developed their talents into domain specific sources of expertise, (c) are

“Ideal Seeking’ individuals that keenly observe their environment, and (d) are interested in

pursuing their own ideas. These outcomes are of direct relevance to corporations. The

performance and creativity enhancement strategies that are suggested by the findings of the

present study, however, represent a fundamentally different approach to that which is adopted

by most corporations.



Whilst the findings of the present study do not represent a validated explanation for PCP (i.e.

such validation would require multiple larger scale studies), Figure 5 does identify a pattern of

twelve key variables that produces PCP, and describes the empirical and theoretical relationships

(based on relationships discussed in the OST literature (Emery, 1999a)) between the variables in

this pattern. The findings of the present study are of significance, therefore, because there is no

other explanation which currently exists that can provide an adequate account of this

increasingly important topic. Figure 5 extends contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness

and creativity (i.e. those studies providing the most comprehensive account of creativity to date)

by: (a) tracing the ways in which the life of the PCP develops, (b) clarifying the ways in which

each of the twelve variables identified by the study influence PCP at different stages of the

career, and (c) plotting the ways in which the PCPer co-evolves with their environment. For

instance, Figure 5 shows that the making and taking of opportunities and the subsequent

development of creative works are the product of ‘Allocentric’ perception of the environment,

high levels of motivation, the development of expertise, a preference for ‘Subjectivizing’, and

‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour. Figure 5 also offers an explanation for the ways in which each of

these variables develop. For instance, it is proposed that the development of expertise is the

result of the amplification of positive affects and the motivation which occurs when, an

individual who experiences such positive affects, grows up in a DP2 structure and becomes

serendipitously engaged with a domain which matches with their innate talents. This type of

explanation for PCP has not previously been available. Previous studies have either: (a)

examined only certain aspects of PCP (i.e. such as intelligence or creative insight), (b) examined

only isolated explanatory variables, or (c) examined patterns which are based on common

attributes which are shared by a cross sectional sample of participants. Such an explanation is

important because it provides the ability to assess and guide individuals at various stages during

their career. For instance, Figure 5 may provide assistance to a student in the final years of high

school who is considering a career in engineering, but who has a natural talent for drawing,

enjoys sketching and has practiced extensively and developed a high degree of artistic expertise.

If this same student demonstrated limited mathematical aptitude, but a strong flair for debating,

Figure 5 may be used to encourage the student to pursue a career in architecture rather than

engineering. Such a decision would capitalise on this student’s innate talents and motivations,

and maximise their performance and creativity.

Figure 5 presents a pattern of PCP which is both accessible (in the sense that it involves only a

few significant variables), and comprehensive (in the sense that it draws together variables from

an eclectic range of historically separate disciplines and identifies the relationships between

them). This is important because the vast majority of existing studies are either, limited to one

or two variables (typically psychological variables), or are presented as highly complex models of



performance and creativity. Moreover, such studies typically provide no way to theoretically

understand the relationship between variables from different disciplines. The model of PCP

developed by the present study (in Figure 5), therefore, makes at least three important

contributions: (a) from a practical standpoint, it is accessible enough to provide guidance on

how to improve performance or creativity, (b) it is comprehensive enough to ensure that the

guidance which is provided is sound, and (c) from an academic perspective, it provides a model

that can be used to compare and contrast findings across a diverse range of disciplines about

various aspects of PCP. For instance, Figure 5 shows how ‘Design Principle 2’ structures in the

home (traditionally a topic for parenting studies) contribute to the development of high

motivation (traditionally examined by psychological studies), and to the development of high

levels of expertise (traditionally reviewed by cognitive studies of expert performance).

5.6.2 A new understanding of the variables

The model of PCP presented in Figure 5 is important because it provides a new way of

understanding the variables which contribute to PCP. Rather than simply identifying that a

variable is correlated with PCP, Figure 5 places each variable in context (i.e. illustrating the

relationship of the individual variable to the overall pattern of PCP) and describes the way in

which that variable works with other variables to produce PCP. At least five potentially fruitful

insights emerge, therefore, from the new perspectives that Figure 5 provides.

Figure 5 shows that that PCP is underpinned by domain specific expertise, and that such

expertise is underpinned by domain specific talents. The existing literature presents two

competing accounts of PCPer skills and abilities (i.e. the ‘General Intelligence’ paradigm and the

‘Expertise’ paradigm). Neither of these accounts, however, examine the ways that innate talents

contribute to the development of the types of skills and abilities which PCPers display. The

‘General Intelligence’ literature regards intelligence as a hereditary domain general capacity but

rarely specifies how this capacity functionally contributes to outcomes such as performance and

creativity. In contrast, the ‘Expertise’ paradigm provides a detailed description of the ways that

deliberate practice enables individuals to chunk information and recognise patterns. There is

little discussion, however, within the expertise literature regarding the role that innate talents

play in the development of expertise, or the ways in which deliberate practice may enhance

innate talents. The present study provides support for the ‘Expertise’ paradigm, however, it

suggests that domain specific expertise is important because of the ways that it contributes to

other variables (i.e. ‘Allocentric’ perception of the environment, the identification of

opportunities in that environment, and the ability to make or take such opportunities). This view

of the role of expertise is very different to role envisaged by studies of ‘Expertise and Expert

Performance’ (i.e. that expertise as a technical asset which enables superior reproducible levels



of performance on predefined tasks). Moreover, in comparison to the existing ‘Expert

Performance’ research, the present study offers a different explanation for the development of

expertise and examines a broader range of variables to account for its development. For

instance, Figure 5 suggests that the development of expertise begins with the opportunities

which are afforded within the family unit (i.e. a ‘Design Principle 2’ structure) and the

serendipitous stumbling upon a domain which matches with the young PCPer’s innate talents.

The ability to effectively utilise their innate talents leads the young PCPer to experience positive

affects. It is the amplification of these positive affects which produces the motivation necessary

to sustain the levels of deliberate practice that are subsequently required to transform innate

domain specific talents into high levels of domain specific expertise.

The present study also offers a very different understanding of the relationship between

expertise and creativity. The literature contains mixed evidence regarding the relationship

between expertise and creativity (see Appendix 9). The dominant view that is reported in the

literature argues that there is an optimum level of expertise required for creative work, however,

beyond that optimum point, there is a negative relationship. Several studies have argued that

cross-domain expertise enhances creativity. A smaller range of studies have also suggested that

expertise inhibits creativity, and that creativity is aided by the use of the novice perspective.

According to the literature, the primary mechanism linking these various forms of expertise and

creativity, is the way that expertise enables or inhibits lateral thinking. In contrast, Figure 5

shows that domain specific expertise enhances performance and creativity. Importantly, Figure 5

identifies a number of mechanisms linking domain specific expertise and PCP (i.e. via a number

of channels; its influence on affects, motivation, perception of the environment and the making

and taking of opportunities). The findings of the present study are important because they

challenge the prevailing view that creativity is about ‘thinking outside the box’ and ‘recombining

ideas’. Overall, the findings of the present study provide a different, and more comprehensive

understanding of the ways in which expertise develops and contributes to PCP. These findings

are important to aspiring PCPers, policy makers, and corporate leaders, because they enable

efforts to be focused on the issues which will have the greatest probability of success (i.e. rather

than focusing on general intelligence and creative thinking techniques, the findings of the

present study suggest that efforts should be directed toward matching innate talents and

domains, and the development of positive affects and domain specific expertise). Moreover,

these findings identify at least five important implications which are of direct relevance to the

‘Expertise and Expert Performance’ research: (a) they raise questions about the efficacy of

deliberate practice which is not related to innate talents, (b) they highlight the importance of

engaging in deliberate practice at a young age, (c) they point toward the need to better

understand the relationship between positive affects and deliberate practice, (d) they suggest that

there may be a relationship between information chunking and the recognition of patterns and



opportunities in the environment, and (e) they identify a need to better understand the role that

expertise plays in making and taking opportunities).

Figure 5 suggests that the behavioural preference of ‘Subjectivising’ (i.e. the desire to pursue

one’s own ideas) contributes to PCP by influencing the desire of PCPers to observe their

environments and make and take the opportunities which exist. In contrast, the literature

identifies positive correlations between a paradoxical range of personality traits and various

definitions of performance and creativity. Notwithstanding the contribution made by Eysenck

(1995), such studies do not describe the way in which personality contributes to PCP. Instead,

the literature focuses on the more static notion of personality type, rather than asking: ‘What

does the PCPer personality lead them to do, and how do these actions contribute to their PCP’?’

In contrast, the present study (a) clarifies that PCPers are ‘Subjectivizers’, (b) removes confusion

about the paradoxical nature of PCPer personality, and (c) shows that the need to pursue one’s

own ideas provides part of the motivation which is required to learn about the environment and

make and take the opportunities which are afforded by it. These findings are important for three

reasons. They help individuals, policy makers and business owners to avoid wasting time and

resources on interventions which are informed by the more romantic notions of creativity (i.e.

that creativity is the work of an eccentric risk taker). Secondly, they provide individuals who are

seeking to enhance performance and creativity, with the knowledge that, on their own, skills,

motivation and observation of the environment, are unlikely to produce PCP. The findings of

the present study suggest that the aspects of the environment that PCPers (i.e. Subjectivizers)

observe, and the way in which they make and take opportunities will be different to that of

individuals with different behavioural preferences. Consequently, the attainment of PCP

requires the contribution of each of the twelve variables identified by this study (including

personality and the role that personality plays in the overall pattern producing PCP).

Figure 5 shows that PCPers have high levels of motivation. Moreover, the study suggests that

high levels of motivation contribute to the attainment of PCP by sustaining PCPer engagement

in the deliberate practice which is necessary to: (a) develop high levels of domain specific

expertise, (b) identify patterns and opportunities that are afforded by the environment, (c)

develop creative insights, and (d) make and take the opportunities which are necessary to put

creative ideas into practice. The present study finds that this very high level of motivation

develops as a result of: (a) the serendipitous match between innate talents and a suitable domain,

(b) the subsequent amplification of positive affects, (c) the intrinsic motivation which comes

from living and working within DP2 organisational structures, and (d) the influence of ‘Ideal

Seeking’ behaviour. In contrast, the large and eclectic body of literature which examines PCPer

motivation, reports the presence of high levels of motivation, but rarely specifies the precise

ways in which such motivation actually contributes to performance and creativity.



Notwithstanding the relatively few studies containing theories about the development of PCPer

motivation (i.e. Eysenck, 1995), most of the literature, either, does not discuss the development

of PCPer motivation, or, relies on the eclectic body of general motivation literature. Even in the

case of Eysenck (1995), the proposed theory of PCPer motivation is partly informed by a

psychoanalytical perspective and it emphasises the role of the compensatory effects which occur

as a consequence of early parental death. As discussed above, these influences do not play any

role in the model of PCP outlined in Figure 5. The findings of the present study are, therefore,

of importance because they provide a theory of PCPer motivation (a variable which despite

being documented more frequently than any other, has remained one of the most poorly

understood). These findings highlight the need for parents and teachers to enable children and

adolescents to experiment with many domains, and to encourage young people to engage in

endeavours for which they possess an innate talent and from which they derive positive affects.

Figure 5 shows that PCPers grow-up, live and work in ‘Design Principle 2’ (DP2) organisational

structures. This means that, from a young age, PCPers are jointly responsible for the goals of the

group to which they belong (i.e. the family or work team), that they are responsible for

coordinating and controlling the day to day aspects of their own lives, and that they experience

the positive aspects of living and working in these structures (i.e. a sense of autonomy and

elbow room, variety enhancement and skill development, a sense of meaning, the capacity for

ideal seeking, and a range of positive affects such as interest, joy and excitement). Illustrating

this process in more detail, Figure 5 shows that DP2 structures enable PCPers to find a domain

which matches with their innate talents, and that they bolster the positive affects that the young

PCPer experiences as a result of successfully using these talents. Moreover, the DP2 structures

that PCPers grow-up, live and work in, bolster PCPer motivation, and as a consequence, this

encourages engagement in deliberate practice, the development of expertise, the development of

creative insights and the making and taking of the opportunities which are needed to become

recognised as a PCPer. The ‘Design Principle 2’ structures that the PCPer lives and works in

also contribute directly toward their engagement in ‘Ideal Seeking’ behaviour which, in turn,

contributes to the development of creative insights. In contrast, the literature on this topic is

eclectic and fragmented in nature. There is limited research which examines the relationship

between organisational structures, performance and creativity, and the mixture of concepts

which are used in the literature makes it difficult to integrate the various findings, or draw any

general conclusions. The literature does, however, provide some indications that PCPers grow

up, live, and work in supportive structures. Due to empirical and theoretical limitations, this

literature does not, however, provide any way to understand the mechanisms by which these

organisational structures contribute to PCP. Importantly, however, the literature does indicate

that the majority of today’s social structures are based on ‘Design Principle 1’ organisational

structures, and that these structures impact negatively on the individuals who live and work



within them. The findings of the present study are important, then, because they show that there

is a single organisational form associated with success, and that this structure is not the one

which is most prevalent in society today. Moreover, the present study shows that this single

organisational form is present throughout the childhood, adolescence and adulthood of the

PCPer. Previous studies have not been able to provide this insight because they have not used

OST (or the ‘Design Principles’) as the underlying theoretical framework. The findings of the

present study have important implications for the parents of PCPers, educational institutions

and organisational leaders because they suggest that there is a need to make a shift from ‘Design

Principle 1’ structures (i.e. the prevailing form of social structure present in society today) to

‘Design Principle 2’ structures. Such a shift would require fundamental changes to the

assumptions, practices and behaviours of many parents, teachers and CEO’s; however, these are

the changes which appear to be necessary to enhance performance and creativity.

Figure 5 shows that PCPers have a particular way of perceiving their environment. In much the

same way that a child observes the environment with a ‘beginners mind’, Figure 5 suggests that

PCPers extract information about their environment and engage in ‘Allocentric’ perception.

Notwithstanding the desire to pursue their own ideas (i.e. ‘Subjectivizing’), PCPers seek to

understand patterns in their environment; even if these are patterns which are unexpected and

challenge established assumptions. Figure 5 shows that engagement in ‘Allocentric’ perception is

influenced by high levels of motivation, the desire to pursue one’s own ideas, high levels of

domain specific expertise, and a desire to pursue idealistic ends. According to Figure 5, PCPer

engagement in ‘Allocentric’ perception and pattern detection, ultimately leads to the

identification of opportunities which can be developed into creative works and transcendent

solutions. In contrast, the processes which are reported in the literature as underpinning the

development of creative insight, involve the identification of commonalities among various

observations, the development intellectual hypotheses to explain these commonalities, and the

re-combination of remotely associated ideas to generate new insights. The literature explains

creative insight by reference to cognitive processes such as remote association, but rarely

describes how these processes work, or why these cognitive processes occur. Moreover, the

literature does not specify how creative insights are then transformed into recognised works (i.e.

performance and creativity). The findings of the present study are important for at least three

reasons: (a) they reinforce the findings of a small body of research which provides an alternate

way to understand creative insight, (b) they identify the variables which contribute to the

development of creative insight, (c) they identify they ways in which these variables relate to the

broader pattern of PCP, and (d) they describe the way that creative insights are used to make

and take opportunities to introduce transcendent solutions (i.e. the mechanisms by which

insights are transformed into performance and creativity). These findings have implications for

the burgeoning number of consultancies that have developed creativity toolkits based upon the



notion of creative insight as a product of remote association, lateral thinking and the intellectual

fermentation of ideas. Moreover, the findings of the present study have important implications

for corporations that are striving to enhance performance and creativity, and scientific and

research institutions that are looking to make new discoveries. For these organisations, the

findings of the present study highlight the importance of: (a) recruiting the right staff (i.e. those

with high levels of expertise which matches well with the requirements of the job role, high

levels of motivation and strongly held views about how they can add value), and (b) providing

them with a work environment which enables them to do their best (i.e. a DP2 structure which

promotes ‘Ideal Seeking’, ‘Positive Affects’, motivation and ‘Allocentric’ perception of the

environment). Importantly, these findings open up the possibility that individuals who are not

academically gifted, may produce creative works (i.e. provided they have been able to develop

expertise in a particular domain). The creative insights which emerge from the engagement in

‘Allocentric’ perception, are available to any individual with an intact perceptual system. This

finding differs markedly from the prevailing abstract-intellectual view of creative processes. It is

a difference in perspective that has important implications for educational and corporate policies

and processes. Furthermore, echoing the points raised by Emery (1999) in Appendix 9, these

findings have important implications for academics regarding the philosophical, theoretical and

methodologies choices that they make. The present study provides support for the use of

McClintock’s approach (see Appendix 9) which employs a philosophy of ‘Realism’, a worldview

of ‘Contextualism’, and the use of ‘Allocentric’ perception and ‘Serial-Genetic’ concepts.



FIGURE 5: PATTERN OF PCP (THIS STUDY)

5.6.3 A deeper understanding of the variables

Sections 5.4 and 5.5 compared the individual variables and the PCP pattern identified by the

present study, with those reported in the literature. Section 5.6.2 also discussed the ways in

which the present study provides a different perspective on, and understanding of, these

variables when compared to the literature.



In contrast, this section discusses the ways that Figure 5 (i.e. the model of PCP developed by the

present study) establishes a platform for gaining a deeper understanding of the pattern

producing PCP.

Figure 5 above, presented a model of PCP which integrates twelve ‘key’ variables from

previously separate disciplines and organises them into a pattern which is thought to explain the

emergence of PCP. Figure 6 below, augments Figure 5 with those findings which are reported in

the literature, but are not examined by, or identified as key variables, in the present study. Figure

6 may, therefore, provide a model of PCP which, not only offers fruitful new perspectives, it

may also provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the patterns producing PCP

beyond that which is presented in Figure 5. Moreover, Figure 6 may provide a useful means for

developing and testing hypotheses, and systematically developing knowledge about the patterns

producing PCP. It has been the absence of such a model (in conjunction with the absence of

adequate definitions, theoretical frameworks and methodologies) that has, to date, limited the

progress of research examining performance and creativity. The model of PCP developed by the

present study provides, therefore, the framework upon which such a model may be developed.

The paragraphs below describe the ways in which findings from the literature (when read in the

context of the pattern of PCP) may provide opportunities to gain a deeper the understanding of

the pattern of PCP identified by the present study. Findings from the present study are reported

in standard black text in Figure 6, and the findings reported in the literature (which were not

examined by, or referred to, in Section 5.6.2 and Figure 5) are presented in red italicised text in

Figure 6.



FIGURE 6: FRAMEWORK FOR GAINING A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF PCP

PCP/ Socio-economic

Status

Above Average

Home life

Design Principle 2

structuresYoungest child

Professional/Middle Class

Intellectual stimulation

Far from domain centre

Innate Talent/ Domain

Match

Positive Affect


(Interest-excitement-

Enjoyment-joy)Approach/ exploratory-play

behaviour

Task persistence

Moderate negative affects

Deliberate Practice

Subjectivizing PersonalityDistinctive personality including

(Externalizing, Independent, Non

conformity, Stimulus freedom, Resilience,

Marginality, Asynchrony, ability to endure

resistance and psychological pain, Sub

clinical psychoticism, Emotional

dysregulation, Sensation seeking, Risk

taking)

Dopamine- serotonin balance

High MotivationObsessive motivation

Motivation complex

Interplay of growth & deficit

needs

Crystallising experiences

Addiction

Reinforcement


field10,000 hours

10 Years

Neural plasticity

Physiological adaption

Perceptual attunement

Pattern recognition & chunking

Canalised development

Automatization

Context

Make & take

Opportunities

Ideal Seeking/

Purposeful

Goal setting

Design Principle 2

structures (Own

Business/ Marriage)Intrinsic motivators

Creative processes

Extraction &

Allocentric

PerceptionAbstraction & insight

Transcendent SolutionFruitful Asynchrony

Zeitgeist

Domain maturity

Technology & paradigm cycles

Context

Serendipitous

engagement with

domain

Understanding

Positive

affect

Early Developmental Influences

Prenatal brain injury/ compensatory

function

Prolonged cortical development

Parental CharacteristicsAverage Ability/Intelligence,

Subjectivizing,

Sensation seeking

Psychoticism

Genetic-Inherited VariablesACTH

CREB Protein

DRD2 Allele

Subjectivizing

Psychoticism

Brain modularity

Talent

Early Parental Death/ Trauma

Resilience, compensatory,

unconventional and

psychoticism effects

Positive group

dynamics

ContextMove to domain centre



Section 5.6.2 describes the findings of the present study in relation to the ways in which innate

talents contribute to PCP. In addition to these findings, the literature indicates that the

development of innate talents may be influenced by parental characteristics, genetic factors, and

developmental and neurological influences. The findings reported by the literature have

remained fragmented because there has not been a model of PCP (like the one presented in

Figure 5) which has provided the ability to integrate them. Figure 6 presents several hypotheses

regarding the ways in which these variables may be related to the pattern of PCP presented in

Figure 5. Figure 6 introduces the possibility that a deeper understanding of the ways in which

innate talents contribute to the attainment of PCP, may be gained. For instance, as presented in

Figure 6, the genetic and brain modularity literature suggests that the innate talents of PCPers

may be inherited from their parents. Figure 6 also suggests that talents may be strengthened or

weakened by developmental processes such as pre-natal brain injury, compensatory functioning,

and prolonged cortical development. Developmental research suggests that such mechanisms

may be responsible for transforming inherited talents into the types of gifts which are observed

in savant populations. Consequently, Figure 6 may not only provide a different perspective from

which to view the literature examining innate talents and intelligence (i.e. by integrating the

findings from these traditionally separate streams of research and relating them to the pattern

producing PCP), it may also offer the means to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in

which PCPer talents develop. Several practical and research implications may, therefore, arise

from the development of models such as Figure 6. Such models may enable parents to predict

and assess the talents of their children, implement interventions which foster the early

development of these talents, and proactively identify ways to facilitate the match between the

talents of their child and the domains which exist. Moreover, Figure 6 may offer a new rationale

for those seeking to conduct research into intelligence, giftedness and expertise.

Similar implications arise from Figure 6 in relation to motivation, expertise, organisational

structures, personality, and the role of the environment. For instance, the findings of the present

study describe the ways in which high levels of PCPer motivation develop and then contribute

to PCP. In addition to the findings of the present study, the literature suggests that PCPer

motivation may be influenced by genetic factors (such as the DRD2 allele), developmental

influences (such as early parental death and its compensatory motivational effects, and

crystallizing experiences), affective processes (such as the interplay between and amplification of

positive and negative affects, and the positive affects emerging from play behaviour), and

addictive processes. Figure 6 provides the rationale for examining each of these traditionally

unrelated findings in terms of the way in which they contribute to the patterns of PCPer

motivation outlined in Figure 5. Consequently, models of PCP such as Figure 6, introduce the

possibility that an integrated theory of PCPer motivation may be developed. The development

of such a theory would, not only enable early screening and assessment of individuals who have



the genetic markers likely to underpin adaptive and maladaptive forms of addictive behaviour, it

would also add to the range of interventions designed to foster the development of PCP that are

described in Section 5.6.2 (i.e. including efforts to facilitate crystallizing experiences, engage

young people who have experienced trauma, and help such individuals to channel the negative

affects of this trauma into performance and achievement rather than criminal activity).

Section 5.6.2 describes the way that expertise develops (i.e. according to the findings of the

present study, expertise develops as a consequence of the serendipitous matching between

innate talents and domains, the amplification of positive affects, and the engagement in

deliberate practice). In addition to the findings of the present study, the ‘Expertise and Expert

Performance’ literature suggests that domain specific expertise is underpinned by neural

plasticity, physiological brain adaptations, the development of enhanced pattern recognition

capabilities, and the capacity for task automatization. The literature also suggests that domain

specific expertise may be enhanced by relocating the young PCPer to the centre of the domain

(i.e. the geographical epicentre of domain activity). These two streams of literature have not,

however, previously been integrated with the research examining creative achievement. Figure 6

introduces, therefore, the possibility of reframing the focus of the ‘Expertise and Expert

Performance’ literature away from expertise as an end in itself by relating it to the pattern of

PCP outlined in Figure 5. Such a change would introduce the means by which a more nuanced

understanding of ways in which expertise develops, and contributes to PCP, may be gained. The

development of models of PCP such as Figure 6 may, therefore, assist parents, coaches and

teachers to: (a) better understand the interaction between innate talents and physiological

adaptation; thereby maximising the effectiveness of deliberate forms of practice, (b) identify the

optimum ages at which deliberate practice should occur, and (c) confirm the ways in which

physiological adaptation may be related to the ability to perceive patterns in the environment;

thereby fostering the development of creative insights.

Section 5.6.2 describes the ways in which ‘Design Principle 2’ (DP2) structures contribute to

PCP (during childhood, adolescence and adulthood). Given the large body of literature

identifying a strong positive relationship between DP2, positive affects and intrinsic motivation,

these influences were also discussed in Section 5.6.2. In addition, the literature identifies several

other influences which contribute to PCP, that are not strictly related to organisational structure,

but are related to the home life and the development of the young PCPer. The literature

suggests that PCPers are born as the youngest child in a professional middle-calls family. The

family home is typically located far away from the domain centre (described above), however,

the family are able to provide the young PCPer will lots of intellectual stimulation. The present

study did not identify ‘Socio-economic’ status as a key variable contributing to PCP, and larger

scale research may be needed to confirm the relationship of these variables to PCP.



Section 5.6.2 describes the ways in which ‘Subjectivizing’ preferences (i.e. behavioural

preference-personality) contribute to PCP. The present study did not examine the biological,

developmental or contextual variables which may underpin the development of the PCPer

personality, however, it did provide the intellectual rationale for doing so. As outlined in Figure

6 (in red italics), the literature suggests that PCPers possess a distinctive personality which is

somewhat paradoxical. In addition, the literature describes two streams of research which

examine the PCPer personality. The first stream of research suggests that PCPers may inherit

the DRD2 allele, a particular dopamine-serotonin ratio, and sub-clinical levels of psychoticism,

and that there is a positive relationship between each of these influences and the development

of ‘Subjectivizing’ behavioural preferences. In addition, this stream of research suggests that

there may be a genetic basis for the development of ‘Sensation Seeking’ and ‘Risk Taking’; two

well documented personality traits which were not identified by the present study but may be

identified as a component of the PCPer personality by studies of larger scale. The second stream

of research establishes a link between early parental death and trauma, and several of the

personality traits associated with PCP (i.e. non conformity, independence, marginality,

emotional dysregulation). Figure 6 introduces the possibility that these two streams of research

may be related to development of the ‘Subjectivising’ preferences displayed by PCPers. As a

consequence, Figure 6 may provide the means for developing a working bio-psycho-socio-

contextual theory of PCPer motivation and personality. Notwithstanding the implications that

such a theory may have for screening and assessing the potential for PCP, the development of

such a theory would significantly change the nature of the pattern of PCP presented in Figure 5

(i.e. by incorporating hereditary and psychoanalytical influences). Such a change would, not only

reframe the focus of intervention strategies, it may also make the development of such strategies

more challenging.

Section 5.3 describes the definition of PCP identified by the present study, and Section 5.6.2

discusses the ways in which PCPers make and take opportunities to introduce transcendent

solutions. Notwithstanding the capacity of ‘Open Systems Theory’ to examine various

environmental types and the dynamics of change, the present study did not deal with these

aspects of PCP. There is a large and eclectic body of literature which suggests that the capacity

of a PCP to introduce transcendent solutions is influenced by the zeitgeist, domain maturity,

paradigm cycles, technology cycles and the processes associated with the development of

disruptive technologies. Moreover, according to the literature, PCP is most likely to arise when,

in addition to the pattern presented in Figure 5, there is (a) an established domain with defined

symbol systems, hierarchies of progression and methods of assessment, (b) a critical mass of

problems associated with the prevailing paradigm, (c) inertia associated with existing

technologies, methods, cultures and systems, (d) a coalition of paradigm shifters, and (e) a

critical mass of successful new ideas, methods or technologies. Notwithstanding the efforts



made by contemporary systems studies to provide a contextual account of prodigiousness and

creativity, the findings reported in the literature remain fragmented. Figure 6, however,

introduces the possibility that the characteristics of creative environments, and the mechanisms

by which change occurs in these environments, may be incorporated into the pattern of PCP

identified by the present study (see Figure 5). From a practical standpoint, the development of

models of PCP such as Figure 6, may, therefore, provide guidance to individuals about the

domains which are most ripe for change, the types of future solutions which are most

promising, and the most fruitful means by which to develop and gain support for new ideas.

5.7 Limitations of the research

The present study is a modest exploration of the patterns producing PCP. It has a number of

limitations which may be overcome by conducting larger scale, more detailed, longitudinal

research studies.

Section 3.6 discussed the difficulties associated with PCPer participant accessibility. Sections 3.6

through 3.10 described the modifications which were subsequently made to the present study

(i.e. changes which were made to the range and type of participants recruited, and to the case-

study and data analysis methods used). Difficulties associated with participant accessibility

reduced the sample size and breadth. The composition of the recruited sample of participants

represented only three domains, and this limited the ability of the study to incorporate the

recommendations made by Feldman et al. (1994) (i.e.to include a wide range of domains),

however, this limitation was partly overcome by the inclusion of a wide range of ‘Observers’.

Notwithstanding the benefits arising from the inclusion of ‘Observers’, the reduction in sample

size and breadth also placed limitations on the creativity analysis outlined in Section 4.2. The

empirically based definition of PCP outlined in Section 4.2 is, therefore, based on a small sample

of participants and this may require additional, larger scale studies to confirm the findings which

are reported. Furthermore, whilst the reduction in sample size and breadth did not necessarily

place limitations on the ability of the study to identify patterns producing PCP (i.e. due to the

use of a theoretical sampling approach, OST, and its concepts and methodology), the

composition of the recruited sample of ‘Performers’, placed limitations on the pattern analysis

outlined in Section 4.3. The recruited participant sample represented only three domains;

thereby limiting the degree to which domain specific patterns could be examined. Moreover, the

decision to recruit two participant samples (i.e. ‘Performers’ and ‘Observers’; rather than a single

larger sample of ‘Performers’), and to utilise shorter embedded case studies (rather than detailed

life history case-studies), reduced the richness of the case study data which was available for

analysis and prevented a more detailed examination of: (a) the role of the environment, (b) the



ways in which the PCPer life unfolds, (c) the ways in which variables interact throughout the

lifespan, and (d) the ways in which the PCPer and their environment co-evolve over time.

As discussed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 Magyari-Beck (1976) and Feldman et al. (1994) recommend

that future creativity research should examine up to forty eight possible research directions.

Notwithstanding the efforts made by the present study, it was unable to incorporate all of these

recommendations. For instance, the present study introduced an expanded performance

typology to assist with the identification and examination of the various forms of performance

and creativity referred to in the literature. This typology utilised by the study did not, however,

provide an exhaustive conceptualisation. Several forms of performance and creativity may not,

therefore, be represented by the concept of PCP. Similarly, the present study sought to integrate

qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis. Despite these efforts, the study primarily

utilised a qualitative methodology, and used quantitative analysis in a supporting role. The

present study is, therefore, a modest exploration of the patterns producing PCP which does not

incorporate all of the recommended research directions identified in the literature.

The present study was designed to identify the pattern(s) (of ‘key’ variables) producing PCP.

This aim, however, places limitations on the scope of the study’s findings. The literature

reviewed in Chapter 2 examines an extensive range of sub-processes underpinning the ‘key’

variables used in the present study. The findings of the study are, therefore, confined to the

identification of headline patterns of PCP. The framework of variables which were used to

conduct the study excluded a range of influences (i.e. institutional level and systemic

macroeconomic influences, sub-variables underlying the development of talent, expertise and

motivation, and variables which examine the role of power). Notwithstanding the contributions

made by Figure 6, this is a limitation which reduces the capacity of the present study to extend

the findings identified in the literature.

Additional constraints upon the range of variables examined by the present study are imposed

by the scope of OST. Whilst one of the key advantages offered by the OST literature, is the

publication of a broad range of established variables, OST does not yet offer a comprehensive

range of variables which are tailored to the study of PCP. This theoretical constraint placed

additional restrictions on the ability of the study to extend the findings of the literature. Open

Systems Theory not only suffers from gaps regarding the range of variables relevant to the study

of PCP, it also introduces several other features which limit the scope of the present study.

Open Systems Theory utilises an established system of concepts which are communicated using

formal language. It is this formality which may limit the accessibility of the findings of the study

and hamper the degree to which the study may assist in organising, integrating, and synthesising

the literature. It may also limit the adoption of Figures 5 and 6 (i.e. the frameworks which may



enable researchers to gain deeper insights into the patterns producing PCP, and systematically

accrue knowledge about PCP). Moreover, the concept of the ‘Design Principle’ has historically

played a central role in OST studies. The findings of the present study identify ‘Design Principle

2’ organisational structures as one of the twelve variables producing PCP. The ‘Design

Principles’ are another formal concept used by OST that may also reduce the accessibility of the

findings of the present study. The notion of the ‘Design Principle’ subsumes the concepts of

power (Pfeffer, 1993) and social capital (Nisbett, 1994; Putman, Leonard & Nanetti, 1994;

Sosniak, 2006; Keating, 2009). Studies of PCP which use OST (including the present study),

may, therefore, be limited in their ability to directly examine such concepts.

The final limitation relates to the methods of validation which were used by the present study.

Several methods can be used to validate coding, scoring and findings. In this study, coding and

scoring of data was verified by independent subject matter experts. Data coding and scoring was

not, however, verified with participants themselves. According to Silverman (2001) and

Newman (2005), the omission of this step may be regarded by some research traditions as

placing limitations on the validity of results.

5.8 Summary

This chapter has compared the findings of the present study with those reported in the

literature. It has discussed the similarities and differences between the findings, outlined the

importance and implications of the comparisons which are made, and discussed the limitations

of the study.

The pattern of PCP identified by the present study reinforces several of the findings reported in

the literature including the presence of: (a) innate talents, (b) the serendipitous engagement in

domains which match innate talents, (c) supportive DP2 organisational structures, (d) positive

affects, (e) domain specific expertise, (f) high levels of motivation, (g) distinctive ‘Subjectivizing’

behavioural preferences, (h) ‘Purposeful’ behaviour, (i) ‘Allocentric’ perception of the

environment and, (j) opportunities afforded by the environment.

The present study aims to identify the patterns producing PCP. This is a different focus to

previous studies. Moreover, the concept of PCP is different to, and of more practical utility,

than the concepts used by previous studies. The model of PCP developed by the present study,

is one which: (a) explains PCP (including the way that the life of the PCPer unfolds, and the

ways in which the PCPer co-evolves with their environment), (b) identifies the contribution that

each variable makes to other variables in the PCP pattern, and (c) provides a comprehensive,



yet, accessible interdisciplinary model of PCP. The model of PCP developed by the present

study, therefore, extends and clarifies the findings reported in the literature. Important

differences between the present study and those reported in the literature include: (a) the

identification of ‘key variables’ rather than more detailed ‘sub-variables’, (b) the ways in which

‘Socio-economic’ status, birth order and family location contribute to PCP, (c) the role of

general intelligence and domain general abilities, (d) the ways in which innate talents develop

and contribute to the development of expertise, (e) the ways in which expertise contributes to

PCP, (f) the relationship between expertise and creativity, (g) the way in which PCPer

motivation develops, and the ways that high levels of motivation contributes to PCP, (h) the

degree to which PCPers engage in high levels of functioning such as ‘Ideal Seeking’, (i) the

degree to which PCPers ‘Understand’ why their actions are effective, (j) the way in which PCPer

personality develops, (k) the degree to which PCPers are regarded as being ‘Externalizers’,

‘Sensation Seekers’ and ‘Risk Takers’, (l) the way in which PCPer personality contributes to

PCP, (m) the degree to which abstract intellectual processes are used to develop creative

insights, (n) the role of negative affects, (o) the impact of PCP on ‘Socio-economic Status’, (p)

the role of DP1 organisational structures, (q) the role of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic

motivators such as ‘Mutual Support and Respect’, (r) the role of positive group dynamics, and

(s) the ways in which contextual influences contribute to PCP. Moreover, the present study is

regarded as being different to those reported in the literature because it identifies the systemic

pattern which connects the twelve ‘key’ variables producing PCP.

These differences outlined above may be the result of differences in research aims, or

philosophical, theoretical and methodological differences. The present study organises,

synthesises and integrates the field of PCP research. It enables findings from historically

separate disciplines to be understood within a single interdisciplinary model of PCP. There are

few studies that have approached the examination of performance and creativity in such a

holistic and systematic way. Few studies have: (a) conceptualised performance and creativity in

terms of the broader functional notion of PCP, (b) been able to transcend dichotomies (such as

the distinction between performance as ‘potential’ or ‘achievement’), or identify the ways in

which performance and creativity relate to one another, (c) established an empirically based

definition of PCP, (d) used a structured performance typology to identify a theoretical sample of

participants, (e) used an established interdisciplinary theoretical framework to enable the

examination of biological, psychological, sociological and contextual influences, (f) used an

established conceptualisation of the environment to gain a more precise understanding of the

role of contextual influences, (g) used a combination of established qualitative and quantitative

methodologies which are suitable for examining patterns among a system of coupled variables,

(h) identified patterns which explain how PCPers develop, the ways in which traditionally

unrelated influences interact, how individuals co-evolve with their environment, or how they



change the world, (i) been able to present such a comprehensive pattern of PCP in such an

accessible format, and (j) established a model of PCP, a theoretical framework and a

methodology which enables knowledge about PCP to be systematically accrued.

The limitations of the present study, however, relate to the relatively modest scale and scope of

the study, the modifications which were made to accommodate participant accessibility

limitations, limitations associated with the theoretical framework used, and the data validation

protocols which were used.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the model of PCP developed by the present study is

important, not only because of its immediate practical relevance to those seeking to enhance

performance and creativity, it also provides the means for continually improving knowledge

about PCP and the practical applications of that knowledge.

The final chapter of the thesis outlines the conclusions of the study and makes

recommendations for future research.

Chapter 6: Conclusion



This chapter synthesises the aims and findings of the present study, reaches conclusions and

provides recommendations for further research. The chapter begins with a review of the

research needs which exist and reaffirms the importance of the research topic. This is followed

by a discussion which synthesises the aims and findings of the study. The third and fourth

sections of the chapter draw the findings of the study together into conclusions and

recommendations for future research.

6.1 Introduction

The present study examined the subject of Peak Creative Performance (PCP). As noted in

Chapter 1, the topics of performance and creativity have been of interest for more than one

hundred years. Moreover, they are topics that have played a central role in human survival,

scientific and technological advancement, and the progressive improvement in standards of

living. Changes in the global economy (i.e. the emergence of the innovation economy, greater

international interconnectedness, and increases in rates of change), growing concerns about

sustainability, increasingly complex policy matters, and the implications of seemingly intractable

political issues, mean that performance and creativity are becoming increasingly important

topics. Organisations require greater performance and creativity from their employees, new

technologies are needed to deal with environmental change and population growth, and non-

traditional methods are needed to adequately respond to the interconnected nature of global

problems (whether they be conflict and war, the treatment of disease and viral spread,

humanitarian difficulties or ethical decisions regarding the uses of genetic engineering).

Notwithstanding its growing importance, PCP (and its sub-topics; performance, creativity,

genius, eminence, and prodigiousness) remains as one of the least well understood phenomena

in the social sciences. It is perhaps not surprising that several important research needs exist. As

argued throughout this study, these research needs include:

1. Clearly defining PCP (i.e. by extending recent efforts to develop consensual and

contextual definitions) and understanding the relationships between concepts such

as performance and creativity.

2. Organising, integrating and synthesising the existing literature so that it is more

accessible to researchers.

3. Understanding the ways in which variables interact to produce PCP (i.e. there is an

understanding of the individual aspects of PCP because much of the existing



literature focuses on isolated variables, however there is little understanding of how

PCP actually occurs).

4. Understanding the ways in which contextual factors contribute to PCP.

5. Identifying and confirming the key variables which produce PCP (i.e. prior to the

completion of any detailed analysis these variables).

6. Developing a better understanding of the systemic ‘patterns’ which produce PCP.

Notwithstanding the progress that has been made in this regard (by recent systems

studies of prodigiousness and creativity), this requires research to go beyond the

identification of factor frequencies, descriptive accounts and abstract models. There

is a need to understand the way that the life of the PCPer develops, their

characteristic features, the context in which they live, the ways in which they co-

evolve with their environment, and the ways in which each of these influences

interact to produce PCP.

7. The use of comprehensive theoretical frameworks to guide PCP research

(particularly established systems frameworks which are suitable for interdisciplinary

studies, and provide the means to incorporate people as open purposeful systems).

8. The use of methodologies which clearly define the concepts being used, include a

broad range of participants (i.e. ‘unambiguous cases’ of PCP), utilise structured

methods of data collection and analysis, and combine the use of qualitative and

quantitative methods).

Each of these research needs identify the ways that: (a) the new paradigm of creativity research

may be extended, and (b) future PCP studies may systematically develop a better understanding

of the patterns producing PCP.

Against this backdrop, the present study sought to better define PCP and clarify the pattern(s)

which produce it. The study aimed to synthesise the literature, identify the ‘key’ biological,

psychological, social and contextual variables which contribute to PCP, understand how these

variables interact, and introduce a theoretical framework and research methodology which is

capable of supporting these aims.

The findings of the present study identify a pattern among twelve variables which produces

PCP. This pattern provides new insights into the relationships between the variables which

contribute to PCP and foreshadows the development of practical applications which may be of

use in a variety of settings. It is expected that such applications would differ in at least four ways

from those which currently exist. Diagnostic applications may be developed which incorporate

probabilistic predictions and instructional information. An example of this type of application

was described in Section 5.6.1 in relation the guidance which may be provided to a high school



student who is considering career choices. Such an approach differs markedly from the use of

existing diagnostic tools (i.e. the classification of individual traits, abilities and potential, using

relatively narrow psychometric criteria). New strategies for producing high performance and

creative solutions may be developed (at individual and organisational levels). In contrast to the

strategies which are commonly used (i.e. ‘popular techniques’ and superficial interventions

which fail to be guided by scientific research), the strategies which may emerge from the

findings of the present study will be guided by an empirical understanding of the pattern of

variables which produce PCP. New advisory methodologies may be developed which recognise

the length of time involved in, and breadth of variables which contribute to, the attainment of

PCP. It is envisaged that such methodologies would not only differ from existing consulting,

coaching, educational or counselling strategies in terms of their scope and time horizon, but also

in terms of the nature of the client-advisor relationship. Finally, at a national level, new policy

settings and educational curricula may be developed which are informed by, and target key

aspects of the PCP pattern. In addition to setting expectations for what all individuals should

learn as they progress through school, such an approach would view formal education in the

context of overall lifetime achievement. Moreover, it would enable formal education to directly

and meaningfully contribute to the enhancement of individual performance and creativity.

6.2 Synthesis of findings

A detailed discussion of the results and findings of the present study was presented in Chapters

4 and 5. In contrast, this section synthesises the aims and findings of the study. The paragraphs

below present each of the research questions investigated by the study, followed by a statement

of the relevant findings which respond to these questions.

6.2.1 How can PCP be defined?

The present study indicates that, whilst high performance and creativity are related, for practical

purposes they are different phenomena (i.e. within the ‘normal’ range of achievement). High

performance involves excellent execution and satisfying the audience (i.e. meeting contextual

requirements), whereas creativity involves the use of novel and different methods to transcend

limitations. The present study shows that the highest levels of performance can only be achieved

through creativity. The highest levels of human achievement are, therefore, referred to as ‘Peak

Creative Performance’. As suggested by the present study, the PCPer is an individual who has

the capacity to transcend existing limitations and convince others of solutions that transcend

these limitations.



6.2.2 What are the pattern(s) which produce PCP?

This study identified a pattern of twelve biological, psychological, social and contextual variables

which produce PCP. Notwithstanding the subtle differences in the patterns producing PCP in

the domains of ‘Business’, Music’ and ‘Design’, there was no evidence to support the existence

of a domain specific pattern of PCP.

6.2.3 How does innate talent contribute toward the emergence of PCP?

The study showed that young PCPers become serendipitously engaged in a domain that matches

with their innate talents. Positive affects, and the amplification of affects (which in part derive

from the successful application of innate talents), encourage the development of a high level of

domain specific expertise (i.e. resulting from a large amount of practice).

6.2.4 What is the role of learned expertise?

The present study found that the development of expertise produces positive affects (i.e.

interest, excitement, and joy) which in turn, contribute to high PCPer motivation. The study

indicates that expertise provides the raw material for creative insight. Together with keen

observation of the environment, the study shows that expertise enables the PCPer to detect

patterns, identify, make and take opportunities, develop creative work which transcends

previous limitations and convince others of the merits of this work.

6.2.5 Which aspects of personality are most significant?

According to the findings of this study, PCPers develop a strong preference for pursuing their

own ideas and they identify, and make and take opportunities to pursue these ideas. They are

not easily influenced by the opinions of others, and appear to be courageous and resistant to

criticism as a result. The study shows that Subjectivizing preferences interact with high levels of

motivation, the endless pursuit of ideals, keen observation of the environment and expertise.

Together these influences result in to development of creative work which transcends existing

boundaries.

6.2.6 What level and type of motivation is required?

This study found that PCPers becomes highly motivated at a young age. Whilst it is unclear if

obsessive or compulsive levels of motivation are involved, the levels of motivation are clearly



very high. The PCPer appears to be on an endless quest in pursuit of idealistic ends, and whilst

it is unclear what types of ends are being pursued, they are highly purposeful in achieving

specific aims. The present study finds that high PCPer motivation is underpinned by positive

affects, and the amplification of these affects. The experience of Design Principle 2

organisational structures (DP2) (i.e. social structures in which the PCPer is jointly responsible

for the goals of the group, and for the coordination and control of matters which directly relate

to their own life and work) also contribute to positive affects and intrinsic motivation. It is

unclear what other genetic, developmental or environmental factors contribute to high PCPer

motivation.

6.2.7 Which organisational form contributes to PCP?

The present study found that PCPers grow up, live and work within Design Principle 2 (DP2)

organisational structures (described above). DP2 structures, therefore, provide the

organisational form for success; and contribute to the development of positive affects, the

development of talents, intrinsic motivation and the pursuit of ideals.

6.2.8 How do contextual factors contribute to PCP?

According to the findings of this study, PCPers are keen observers of their environment and

they detect patterns and opportunities in their environment. During their early to mid-career,

PCPers make or take opportunities which results in them becoming recognised throughout their

field. PCPers convince, and are recognised by, experts in their field for developing solutions

which transcend existing limitations.

6.2.9 How do variables interact to produce PCP?

This study identified a pattern among twelve variables that produces PCP. As discussed in

Chapters 4 and 5, this pattern identifies several empirical and theoretical relationships between

the twelve variables and describes how the overall configuration of relationships between these

variables produces PCP.

6.3 Conclusions

The present study set out to better define PCP and clarify the pattern(s) that produce it. This

section discusses the ways in which performance and creativity are better understood as a

consequence of completing this study. That is, the conclusions that have been reached and the



ways in which the findings of the study have changed, extended or enhanced understanding of

performance and creativity. The section begins with a discussion of the conclusions which are

drawn regarding the definition of PCP. This is followed by a discussion of the conclusions

which relate to the pattern producing PCP. The section closes with a review of the ways in

which ‘Open Systems Theory’ has contributed to the development of new insights about PCP,

and a reflection upon the importance of the contributions made by the present study.

6.3.1 Definition of PCP

This study found that the PCPer is an individual with high levels of domain specific expertise,

high levels of motivation, and a desire to pursue new ideas, who, by keenly observing their

environment, identifies solutions which transcend existing limitations and, who is able to

convince experts in their domain of the value of these solutions. These findings have led to the

development of three conclusions regarding the definition of PCP. These conclusions are

discussed in more detail below.

6.3.1.1 Creativity is the highest level of human performance

Creativity and performance have traditionally been regarded as distinctly different concepts.

Performance is typically viewed as a practical and tangible concern, whereas creativity is

conceived as being an enigmatic and intangible activity. Notwithstanding these views, the

participants who are identified as peak performers by the present study, are recognised because

of their creative contributions. Just as the distinction is made between ‘process innovation’ and

‘product innovation’, ‘sustaining’ and ‘disruptive technologies’, and ‘periods of normal science’

and ‘paradigm shifts’, the present study discusses performance in terms of execution and

satisfying the audience, and regards creativity as the transcendence of existing limitations.

Individuals who have ‘mastered’ a domain are recognised and held in high esteem, however, it is

those individuals who redefine the rules of that domain and enable even higher levels of

performance to be attained, that are regarded as PCPers. Peak Creative Performance is regarded

as being the highest level of human performance because it is through creativity that individuals

actually improve the level of performance. Moreover, such individuals enable levels of

performance to be attained which were previously considered unimaginable. Both phenomena

(performance and creativity) are, therefore, about performance enhancement; they are just

different aspects of high performance. It may be fruitful, then, to progress future research and

practice on the basis that creativity represents the highest levels of human performance and

achievement.



6.3.1.2 Creativity is underpinned by performance

A large body of literature defines creativity in terms of creative insight and describes the process

of creation in terms of cognitive mechanisms such as lateral thinking and janusian thinking. In

contrast, the findings of the present study show that there is a strong relationship between

performance and creativity (particularly at the highest levels). The pattern of PCP identified by

the present study also shows that creative achievement is the product of a long period of hard

work involving the development of expertise, and the identification of deep insights into the

patterns and opportunities that are afforded by the environment. Creative works which are not

underpinned by such a process (i.e. works which emerge from the application of creative

‘techniques’ to generate new ideas and creative insights, rather than those which emerge from

the pattern of PCP identified by the present study), often appear to lack substance. A similar

conclusion has been suggested by the literature examining the dual criterion of novelty and

appropriateness. Creative works which are highly novel, but not regarded as being contextually

appropriate, are often regarded as being bizarre or impractical. The definition of PCP, and

pattern of PCP identified by the present study, show that PCPers strike the right balance

between novelty and appropriateness because they possess deep domain specific expertise and

they are immersed in their domain. This is the substance that keeps their creative work

grounded. As is discussed in more detail below, it is also the process that fuels creative insight.

6.3.1.3 PCP is highly dependent on context

Examination of the role which is played by contextual factors in relation to performance and

creativity is relatively new. There has, however, been a longstanding recognition of the role

played by the ‘zeitgeist’. The definition of PCP established by the present study illustrates the

significant role that contextual factors (i.e. the environment) play in producing high levels of

performance and creativity. Participant responses emphasise the importance of satisfying the

audience and transcending limitations. An individual is not regarded as a PCPer unless they are

recognised by key individuals within their domain. This requires the PCPer to make or take

opportunities to convince experts in the domain that their work transcends existing limitations

and provides higher levels of performance. This contextual understanding of PCP has broader

implications for the definition of PCP. As has been recognised in the literature, experts in a

domain make judgements about individuals working in that domain as a matter of their normal

day to day routine. Individuals are recruited and selected, or rejected, at various points during

their careers by such experts. An individual with a unique set of talents and expertise who is

accepted and supported during one historical period or geographical place, may be rejected in

another. Even during the early careers of PCPers (i.e. prior to the development of any creative

work), the context systematically influences what is regarded as acceptable in terms of talents



and expertise (i.e. the means of gaining access to a domain) and what is not. The expertise

literature offers a means by which expert performance can be defined (i.e. in a seemingly

objective manner), however, just as creative works of art are recognised posthumously (i.e.

effectively redefining the criteria by which an artwork is judged), so too are the criteria by which

expert performance is judged, subject to change. The implications of this conclusion extend to

the debate surrounding the definition of PCP as ‘potential’ versus ‘achievement’. Clearly both

are defined and judged by domain experts and the criteria which is used to make these

judgements may also change. For instance, it is quite feasible that the prevailing preference for

the use of standardised psychometric testing (i.e. the measurement of general intelligence) to

assess human ‘potential’, may be replaced by another proxy measure of ‘potential’ in coming

years. The present study confirms and highlights the degree to which PCP relies upon the

context; not only in terms of the contribution which is made by contextual influences, but also

with regard to the criteria which is used to define and assess PCP.

6.3.1.4 Additional insights

In addition to the three conclusions above, the present study has extended understanding of the

definitions of performance and creativity in at least five ways. The definition introduced by the

present study (i.e. PCP) clarifies inconsistencies and resolves areas of duplication in the

literature. It is anticipated that the introduction of the definition of PCP will enhance the focus

and confidence of researchers, not only because it is simple and clear, but also because it is a

definition which has an empirical basis. The definition of PCP introduced by the present study

answers the questions: ‘What is creativity, and where is creativity’? It does this by describing in

precise terms, what it is that the PCPer does to change the world. The present study introduces,

therefore, a new perspective which transforms the previously fragmented and

compartmentalised literature into a single more accessible interdisciplinary field of research

where there are clearer relationships between the various sub-concepts of PCP (such as

performance and creativity). In addition to highlighting the role played by contextual influences,

the definition of PCP developed by the present study extends the contextually based definitions

of creativity that have been introduced by previous studies. The present study introduces a more

precise conceptualisation of the environment (i.e. clarifying who makes judgements about the

PCPer, and by what criteria). Moreover, the definition of PCP developed by the present study,

serves to clarify the meaning of the criteria used to define creativity in the literature (i.e. novelty

and appropriateness). The present study achieves this by introducing the notions of

‘transcending limitations’ and ‘convincing experts in the domain’.



6.3.2 Pattern producing PCP

As discussed above, the present study identifies a pattern of twelve key variables which produce

PCP. Eight conclusions about PCP can be drawn from the findings of this study. This section

discusses each of these conclusions and reflects on the contribution that the use of ‘Open

Systems Theory’ has made toward extending understanding of the patterns producing PCP.

6.3.2.1 PCP requires the whole pattern

The pattern identified by the present study extends understanding of PCP by presenting it as a

configuration or series. Removal of any individual element of this pattern qualitatively changes

the nature of the pattern. Traditional studies of PCP isolate individual factors. Often,

contemporary systems studies also place emphasis on certain variables at the expense of others,

or portray the various factors as components that can be inserted or withdrawn in the

appropriate measure without any implications. In contrast, the present study shows that PCP

occurs because of the way in which each variable in the PCP pattern influences the remainder of

variables in the pattern. Emphasis is not placed on the contribution that each variable makes in

isolation. For instance, the present study shows that innate domain specific talent is important

because of the effect that these talents have on positive affects, motivation, the development of

domain specific expertise, and the ways that PCPers perceive their environment and generate

creative insights. Innate talent is not, therefore, important simply because it provides advantages

in terms of the speed of learning in the domain.

The present study argues that the development of an adequate understanding of PCP is most

effectively obtained by tracing the life history of the PCPer (i.e. the pattern of events that occur

throughout the PCPer’s life). Often performance and creativity research relies on cross sectional

studies which develop a profile of PCP based on the frequency of respondents that possess

certain characteristics (i.e. intelligence, motivation, independent personality traits). The result is

an abstract understanding of PCP. In contrast, the pattern of PCP identified by the present

study traces the lives of six ‘Performers’. The study examined the characteristics of the

environment that participants grew up in, the characteristics which make them unique, the ways

in which they co-evolved with their environment, and the ways in which their unique

characteristics contributed to, or detracted from, their achievements. Corroboration of these six

life histories enabled the present study to develop a more nuanced and grounded understanding

of the pattern producing PCP. As argued throughout the study, this pattern represents the

‘genotypical’ pattern of PCP (i.e. in the same way that DNA represents the underlying sequence

or configuration of molecules that make-up the human genome).



6.3.2.2 Options within constraints

PCP can not be achieved by everyone. The pattern of PCP identified by the present study shows

that achievement of the highest levels of human performance is governed by constraints and

basic principles. To use the vernacular, not just any old approach will work. For instance, it is

unlikely that an individual who lacks both innate musical talent, and the motivation to play

music, will become a world recognised musician. Notwithstanding this, there is no a single

correct way to achieve PCP. For instance, the pattern of PCP developed by present study

suggests that such an individual may, instead, become a PCPer in music production or reality

TV production if (provided all other requirements of the PCPer pattern are met) he or she

possesses innate talents in marketing, business and communication. In contrast to the traditional

paradigm of performance and creativity research, and in support of the new paradigm outlined

by Feldman et al. (1994), the findings of the present study do not suggest a ‘you’ve either got it

or you haven’t’ conception of PCP. There are many ways in which talents and skills can be

matched with the environment. There are also many ways in which developments in one part of

the PCP pattern may influence or activate other parts of the pattern. For instance, an individual

who practices music for a sustained period of time (i.e. piano lessons as part of a school

curriculum) may serendipitously stumble upon their ability to sing, or, they may begin to enjoy

playing piano so much, that the amount of practice they undertake compensates for minor

deficiencies in their musical talents. Moreover, the present study shows that individual ‘potential’

for PCPer is multifaceted. In contrast to the current notions of ‘aptitude’ (which assess single

skills or abilities), the ‘potential’ to become a PCPer is better assessed by giving consideration to

the overall pattern of talent, expertise, motivation and personality.

6.3.2.3 DP2: The organisational form for success and innovation

There is an eclectic body of literature examining the influence of sociological variables on PCP.

Examined through the lens of the organisational Design Principles, it is clear that hierarchical

structures (i.e. ‘Design Principle 1’ (DP1) structures) do not produce PCP. Design principles

describe the way that the relationships between individuals (i.e. in any form of relationship;

family, collegiate, social or professional) are structured. ‘Design Principle 1’ is the social

structure present when an individual does not have the responsibility for coordinating and

controlling aspects of their own life. Under DP1 structures, a parent, teacher or manager is

typically responsible for the coordination and control of events. The present study shows that

‘Design Principle 2’ (DP2) is the organisational form underpinning success and innovation.

‘Design Principle 2’ is the social structure present when an individual has responsibility for

coordinating and controlling aspects of their own life. There is joint responsibility for goals of

the group with other individuals (i.e. with parents, teachers or managers), and each individual in



the group is regarded as being an equal who possesses differing skills. The present study clearly

discounts the role of DP1 structures and supports the efficacy of DP2 structures.

6.3.2.4 PCP is domain specific

The concept of general intelligence has played a central role in performance and creativity

research for over one hundred years. Notwithstanding the contributions made by recent studies

which examine differing types of intelligence, the ‘general intelligence paradigm’ continues to

influence practices in educational institutions and corporations across the world. In contrast, the

present study supports the ‘expertise paradigm’ and shows that PCP is underpinned by domain

specific innate talents and expertise. Not only, do domain specific innate talents produce the

positive affects (and subsequently motivation) that are associated with PCP, domain specific

expertise (i.e. the development of superior information chunking and patterning capabilities),

when combined with keen observation of the environment, enable PCPers to make and take

opportunities that are afforded by their environments and develop solutions which transcend

existing limitations. In summary, the present study not only clarifies the relationship between

expertise and creativity, it also demonstrates that PCP is associated with domain specific

abilities, not with general intelligence.

6.3.2.5 Rarity, time and age

The present study shows that PCP is relatively rare. There is a low probability that, for any

particular individual, all twelve of the variables identified by the study will coalesce in the correct

configuration. There is a comprehensive body of literature suggesting that world class levels of

expertise require approximately ten thousand hours (i.e. approximately ten years) of deliberate

practice. Peak Creative Performance, therefore, takes a long time and a lot of hard work.

Moreover, as the present study shows, the journey toward PCP must commence at an early age.

Age of commencement is important because there is a greater capacity for neurological plasticity

and neurological patterning at a young age. Early engagement in a domain increases the

likelihood, therefore, that deliberate practice will successfully to transform innate talents into the

types of domain specific expertise which is required for PCP. Consequently, PCP is a rare

phenomenon. It must begin the pre-teen years; it requires at least ten years of dedicated effort

and, even then, its achievement is reliant upon on a number of other factors falling into place in

the correct sequence.



6.3.2.6 Obsessive motivation relies on positive affects

It is generally recognised that PCPers require high levels of motivation. There is, however, little

research examining the nature of PCPer motivation, or the way that it develops. The present

study confirms that motivation plays a central role in PCP. Moreover, the study shows that PCP

requires an obsessive level of motivation, and that this level of motivation is produced by the

amplification of positive affects (which derive, in part, from the successful use of innate talents).

This is one conclusion which is made tentatively, because there is a comprehensive body of

literature which suggests that PCPer motivation is also strongly influenced by various

compensatory strategies that are used to cope with early parental death and the associated

trauma (i.e. PCPers frequently experience early parental death). In addition to these influences

on PCPer motivation, there is a body of literature which identifies several parallels between

PCPer motivation and the motivational processes which are involved in addiction. Further

research regarding the role of compensatory strategies and the processes of addiction may,

therefore, be needed to adequately explain the obsessive levels of motivation observed in

PCPers.

6.3.2.7 PCPers pursue their own ideas

The present study confirms the distinctiveness of the PCPer personality and highlights the

significant role that personality plays in PCP. The literature describes an extensive and

paradoxical list of personality characteristics which are associated with PCP. The present study

clarifies this literature and shows that the defining aspect of the PCPer personality is the strong

preference for pursuing one’s own ideas. It is this preference, which contributes (in conjunction

with expertise, motivation and keen observation of the environment) to the development of

creative works which transcend existing limitations.

6.3.2.8 Creative insight is allocentric perception

Creative insight is typically believed to be the result of cognitive processes such as lateral

thinking and remote association. In contrast, the present study shows that creative insights are

produced by ‘Allocentric perception’. PCPers are ecological learners who are very interested in

observing events and objects their natural environment, and extracting information and

detecting patterns in their environment. They are not limited by preconceptions of what ‘should

be’. They make observations of their environment using an approach which is analogous to the

‘beginners mind’, and this leads them to detect underlying patterns in their environment. This is

a very different understanding of creative insight to that which is most frequently reported in

the literature. Different results, however, may be obtained by conducting larger and more



detailed studies of the patterns producing PCP. Nevertheless, the portrait of the PCPer as an

‘Allocentric’ perceiver of the environment (i.e. as shown by the present study), raises a number

of important questions. For instance, in what way does the patterning which occurs during the

development of expertise assist with the ability to detect patterns in the environment, and is

pattern detection more a function of motivation, or is it due to a constellation of influences

(expertise, motivation, subjectivizing, ideal seeking and ecological learning)?.

6.3.2.9 The importance of OST

The findings and conclusions of the present study could not have been achieved without the use

of ‘Open Systems Theory’ (OST) as the theoretical framework. It is a framework which utilises a

different perspective and methodology to those employed by previous studies of performance

and creativity. Open Systems Theory not only provided the present study with a new way to

conceptualise the ‘pattern’ which produces PCP, it also provided a new way to define the

concepts which were used to examine PCP (i.e. in functional terms), including the development

of new way to define PCP itself. Open Systems Theory extended the logic and philosophical

rationale which has been used by contemporary systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity

to justify the use of relatively small theoretical samples (i.e. OST introduces the notion of the

‘universal in the particular’; meaning that the pattern producing PCP is present, and can

therefore be identified, in each individual case). In addition, the use of OST allowed the present

study to conceptualise the system and environment in a more structured and precise way. This

enabled the development of a better understanding of the way in which the PCPer co-evolves

with their environment. Open Systems Theory enabled the present study to extend and

structure the data gathering and analysis approaches that have been used by contemporary

systems studies of prodigiousness and creativity. It not only provided a framework which

allowed for the identification of a range of ‘key’ variables, it also enabled the study to keep the

model of PCP relatively simple and understandable. Moreover, OST not only enabled the

present study to incorporate variables which span different disciplines, it also allowed the study

to understand the empirical and theoretical relationships between these variables. Furthermore,

OST provided the capacity to deal with issues such as bi-directional causation within a complex

system of coupled variables. Open Systems Theory introduced several powerful concepts and

methodological tools (i.e. the ‘Design Principles’, the concepts of learning by ‘Extraction’ and

‘Allocentric’ perception, and the use of ‘Causal Path Analysis’) which provided a new way to

analyse PCPer data. Of particular importance, is the rationale that OST provides for the

structural corroboration of qualitative and quantitative research. In addition, OST offered the

means to organise the fragmented, compartmentalised and multi-disciplinary performance and

creativity literature, and it better enabled comparisons to be made between the findings of the

present study and those reported in this literature. Ultimately, OST provided the means to



identify the pattern which produces PCP. It may also offer a fruitful means for systematically

gaining deeper knowledge about the pattern which produces PCP.

6.4 Recommendations

In line with its objectives, the present study identified a pattern which outlines the way that PCP

emerges. Further PCP research is needed, not only to confirm the pattern of PCP identified by

the present study, but also to develop a better understanding of the sub-variables which

underpin this pattern. Areas which were highlighted as being of particular interest include: (a)

understanding the way that PCP occurs in different types of environments, (b) examining the

ways in which environmental dynamics make a domain ready for PCP, (c) obtaining a more

detailed examination of the way in which PCPers are recognised within their domain, (d) gaining

greater insight into the ways in which genetics, positive affects, compensatory strategies, and

addictive processes influence the development of high levels of PCPer motivation, (e)

developing a more detailed understanding of the relationship between genetic and

developmental influences on the development of PCPer Subjectivizing preferences, and (f)

examining the ways in which expertise, motivation, ‘Subjectivising’, ‘Ideal seeking’ and

‘Allocentric’ perception interact to enable PCPers to detect patterns and opportunities in their

environment.

The present study is a modified version of the larger research program envisioned in Section

1.5.7. It is anticipated that such a research program may offer a fruitful means by which to

progress many of the research directions outlined above. Key elements of such a research

program include: (a) a pre-study to validate the definition of PCP, (b) extension of the OST

framework of variables to include sub-variables, (c) inclusion of a broader range of PCPer

participants, (d) the use of a control group, (e) the use of multiple full length life case history

interviews, including input from family members, teachers, colleagues and domain experts

(however conducting a longitudinal study is preferable to life case histories), and (f) the full

usage of ‘Directive Correlation’ and ‘Causal Path Analysis’. It is envisaged that such a research

program would extend the present study and overcome many of its limitations. In addition, the

proposed research program may establish the means by which knowledge about the patterns

producing PCP can be systematically developed. Moreover, such a research program may

provide practical assistance to those who would most benefit from knowledge about how to

improve performance and creativity (i.e. aspiring PCPers and their parents, CEO’s of

corporations, sporting organisations and research and development institutions, individuals

dealing with sustainability, government officials who are dealing with complex policy decisions,

and educational policy makers, teachers and other professional advisors).



6.5 Summary

This chapter has synthesised the aims and findings of the present study, drawn the learnings of

the study together into several conclusions, and made recommendations for further research.

.


List of references

Aamodt, M. G. (2012). Industrial/organisational psychology: An applied approach. Wadsworth.

Belmont.

Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition:

Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology General,

117, 288-318.

Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in complex skills acquisition:

Dynamics of ability determination. Journal of applied psychology, 77, 598-614.

Ackerman, P. L. (2003a). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85-

93.

Ackerman, P. L. (2003b). Cognitive ability and non-ability trait determinants of expertise.

Educational Researcher, 32(8), 15-20.

Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2006). Methods for studying the structure of expertise:

Psychometric approaches. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R.

Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 147-166).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities,

and non-ability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314-330.

Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Ackoff, R. L., & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.

Adams, J., & Kirby, R. J. (2002). Excessive exercise as an addiction: a review. Addiction Research,

30, 415–437.

Adler, A. (1925). The practice and theory of individual psychology. London: Routledge.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian

Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Akin, O. (1980). Models of architectural knowledge. London: Pion.


Albert, R. S. (1983). Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Albert, R. S. (1992). Genius and eminence. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to

proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10–14.

Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a

multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation,

emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development, (pp. 273–

298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Allan, D., Kingdon, M., Murrin, K., & Rudkin, D. (2002). Sticky wisdom: How to start a creative

revolution at work. West Sussex: Capstone.

Allport, G. W. (1937). The functional autonomy of motives. American Journal of Psychology, 50,

141-156.

Allport, G. W. (1965). Letters from Jenny. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer Verlag.

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creatvivity. Colarado:

Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft of creativity. American

Psychologist, 56(4), 333-336.

Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.

Applebaum, E. & Batt, R. L. (1994). The new American workplace: Transforming work systems in the

United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Argy, V. E. (1992). Australian macroeconomic policy in a changing world environment (1973-90). Sydney:

Allen & Unwin.

Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method and practice.

Massachusettes: Addison-Wesley

Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.


Ariew, R. (1976). Ockham’s Razor: A historical and philosophical analysis of Ockham’s principle of

parsimony. University of Illinois. Urbana.

Aristotle. (1986). De Anima: On the soul. Corpus Aristotelicum. London. Penguin

Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice. London: Kogan Page

Publishers.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Pretence Hall.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princetown: Van Nostrand.

Attard, B. (2010). The economic history of Australia from 1788: An introduction. Retrieved from

https://eh.net.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1994). Australian Social Trends (no. 4102.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000). Australian Business Register (no 1369.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1369.0.55.001Explanatory%2

0Notes1Oct%202000?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). Agriculture in Focus: Farming Families, Australia (no. 5.001).

Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). Census Data by Topic. Retrieved from

http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/historicaldata2006

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006c). General Social Survey: Summary Results, Australia (no.

4159.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4159.0Main+Features12006?

OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Australia & New Zealand Standard Classification of

Occupations, First Edition, Revision 1 (no. 1220.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1220.0

Axelrod, R. M. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent based models of competition and collaboration.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8so/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul

https://eh.net/

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1369.0.55.001Explanatory%20Notes1Oct%202000?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1369.0.55.001Explanatory%20Notes1Oct%202000?OpenDocument

http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/historicaldata2006

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4159.0Main+Features12006?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4159.0Main+Features12006?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1220.0


Ayers, K. E. (2006). Engagement is not enough: You need passionate employees to achieve your dream.

Charleston, South Carolina: Advantage Media Group.

Badcock, B. & Beer, A. (2000). Home truths: Property ownership and housing wealth in Australia.

Carlton South: Melbourne University Publishing.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive

Science, 4, 417–423.

Bak, P. (1999). How nature works: The science of self organised criticality. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ball, P. (2006). Critical Mass: How one thing leads to another. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Bamberger, J (1982). Growing up prodigies: The midlife crisis. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New

directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity, (pp. 265-279).

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist,

37(7), 747-755.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1983). Reframing: Neuro-linguistic programming and the transformation of

meaning. Moab, UT: Real People Press.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in

cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self evaluative and self efficacy mechanisms governing the

motivational effect of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-

1028.

Bangert, M., & Schlaug, G. (2006). Specialization of the specialized in features of external

human brain morphology. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 1832–1834.

Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and

talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning.

Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.


Barenbaum, N. B., & Winter, D. G. (2008). History of personality theory and research. In O. P.

John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 3-28). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In E. T.

Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, 2, 93-130. New

York: Guilford Press.

Barker, J. A. (1993). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New York: Harper Business.

Barnett, V. (1998). Kondratiev and the dynamics of economic development: Long cycles and industrial growth

in historical context. Palgrave: Macmillan.

Barnwell, M. (2011). Design, creativity and culture. London: Black Dog Publishing.

Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York: Seminar Press.

Barron, F. (1995). No restless flow: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Barron, F., Montuori, A., & Barron, A. (1997). Creators on creating: Awakening and cultivating the

imaginative mind. New York: Tarcher-Penguin.

Bashi, J. (1977). Effects of inbreeding on cognitive performance. Nature, 266(5601), 440-442.

Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Chard, F., Smith, D., & Taliaferro, A. (1979). Generality of the glow

of goodwill: The effect of mood on helping and information acquisition. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 42, 176-179.

Baumgarten, F. (1930). Wunderkinder psychology sche Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius

Barth.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.). Child development today and

tomorrow, (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, L. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of

residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 428-433.

Bedard, J., & Chi, M. (1993). Expertise in auditing. Auditing Journal of Practice and Theory, 12, 21-

45.

Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Evolution of management thought: Critical perspectives on business and management.

London: Routledge.


Beer, J. M., Arnold, R. D., & Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Genetic and Environmental Influences on

MMPI Factor Scales: Joint Model Fitting to Twin and Adoption Data. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 818-827.

Bengtsson, S. L., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., & Ullén, F. (2005). Extensive

piano practicing has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature

Neuroscience, 8(9), 1148-1150.

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park,

California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Bennis, W., & Ward-Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration.

Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Berenson, M. L.,. Levine, D. M., & Krehbiel, T. C. (2008). Basic business statistics: Concepts and

applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berggren, C. (1992). The Volvo experience: Alternatives to lean production in the Swedish auto industry.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri &

C. Collins-Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students, (pp. 141-186).

Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-

286.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York:

George Braziller Publishing.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock.

Binet, A. (1915). A method for measuring the intelligence of young children. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Publishing.

Binet. A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore: Williams &

Wilkins.

Blendell, C., Henderson, S.M., Molloy, J.J., & Pascual, R.G. (2001). Team performance shaping factors

in IPME. Unpublished report. Fort Halstead: DERA.


Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self interest. San Franscisco: Berrett Koehler

Publishers.

Bloom, B. S. (1958). Ideas, problems, and methods of inquiry. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The

integration of educational experiences: The 57th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of

Education, Part III, (pp. 84-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballentine.

Blum, K., Febo, M., McLaughlin, T., Cronje, F. J., Han, D., Gold, M. (2014). Hatching the

behavioural addition egg: Reward deficiency solution syndrome (RDSS) as a function of

dopaminergic neurogenetics and brain functional connectivity linking all addictions

under a common rubric. Journal of Behavioural Addiction, 3(3), 149-156.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. New York: Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2002). On creativity. New York: Routledge

Bohm, D., & Peat, D. F. (1989). Science, order and creativity. London: Routledge.

Bolles, E. B. (1988). Remembering and forgetting. Inquiries into the nature of memory. New York: Walker

& Company

Bookchin, M. (1994). The philosophy of social ecology. London: Black Rose Books.

Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Boring, E. G. (1971). Dual role of the zeitgeist in scientific creativity. In V. S. Sexton & H. K.

Misiak (Eds.), Historical perspectives in psychology: Readings, (pp. 54-65). Belmont, CA:

Brooks-Cole Publishers.

Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted

children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (pp. 182-

200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borland, J. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3), 6-20.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The

meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.

Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J. & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in

task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.


Bossomaier, T., & Snyder, A. W. (2004). Absolute pitch accessible to everyone by turning off

part of the brain. Organised Sound. 2, 181-189.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss, vol. 1: Loss. New York: Basic Books

Brandon, E. D., Welch, H. O., & Tuttle, M. W. (2012). The history of financial planning: The

transformation of financial services. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The ideal problem solver: A guide to improving thinking, learning

and creativity. New York: Worth Publishers.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,

and school. Washington: National Academy Press.

Brendtro, L., Mitchell, M., & McCall, H. (2009). Deep brain learning: Pathways to potential with

challenging youth. Albion, MI: Circle of Courage Institute at Starr Commonwealth.

Bricklin, B., & Bricklin, P. M. (1967). Bright child, poor grades: The psychology of underachievement. New

York: Delacorte Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In Vasta, R. (Ed.), Annals of child

development, 6, 187-249. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brooks, I. (2009). Organisational behaviour: Individuals, groups and organisation. Essex: Pearson

Education.

Brown, D. (1991). Human Universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organisations and inspires innovative

thinking. New York: HarperCollins.

Bruce, M. (2002). Design in business: Strategic innovation through design. London: Financial Times

Management.

Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology: International encyclopaedia of unified science.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bryan,W. L., & Harter, N. (1899). Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a

hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review, 6, 345–375.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do

differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Bransford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_People_Learn:_Brain,_Mind,_Experience,_and_School_(expanded_edition)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_People_Learn:_Brain,_Mind,_Experience,_and_School_(expanded_edition)


Bullock, W. A., & Gilliland, K. (1993). Eysenck's arousal theory of introversion-extraversion: A

converging measures investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 113-123.

Burdek, B. E. (2001). Design: The history theory and practice of product design. Boston: Birkhauser

Architecture.

Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies

of a thousand gifted children: In Terman, L.M. (Ed.), Genetic studies of genius, Vol 3.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructivism. New York: Routledge.

Buss, D.M. (2008). Human nature and individual differences: Evolution of human personality.

In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 29-60).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Butler-Por, N. (1987). Underachievers in School: Issues and Intervention. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H.

Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, (pp.

553-568). Oxford: Pergamon.

Butterworth, B. (2006). Mathematical expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich

& R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp.

457-470). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Camerer, C.F., & Johnson, E.J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgement:

How can experts know so much and predict so badly. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith

(Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits, (pp. 195-217). Cambridge

MA: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other

knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400.


Campbell, D. T. (1990). Levels of organization, downward causation, and the selection-theory

approach to evolutionary epistemology. In G. Greenberg & E. Tobach (Eds.), Theories of

the evolution of knowing, (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2001). Individual and team training. In N. Anderson, S. Ones,

H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational

psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Canli, T. (2008). Toward a molecular psychology of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins &

L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 311-327). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team

decision making. In N. J. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making, (pp. 221-

246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team

competencies: Implications for training requirements and strategies. In R. Guzzo & E.

Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, (pp. 333-380). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Canton, J. (2007). The extreme future: The top trends that will reshape the world in the next 20 years. New

York: Penguin Group.

Capra, F. (1992). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London: HarperCollins.

Cardon, L. R., Fulker, D. W., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (1992). Multivariate genetic analysis of

specific cognitive abilities in the Colorado Adoption Project at age 7. Intelligence, 16, 383-

400.

Carew, J. (1990). You’ll never get no for an answer. New York: Pocket.

Carlsson, A. (1988). The current status of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia.

Neuropsychopharmacology, 1, 178-203.

Carmack, M. A., & Martens, R. (1979). Measuring commitment to running: a survey of runners'

attitudes and mental states. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 25-42.


Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on

the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behaviour and

Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13.

Carney, J. K. (1986). Intrinsic motivation and artistic success. Chicago: University of Chicago,

Department of Behavioral Sciences, Committee on Human Development.

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A

theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological

Review, 97(3), 404-431.

Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. London: W.W. Norton &

Company.

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in

schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-29.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cassirer, E. (1923). Substance and function and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Chicago: Open Court.

Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., Sharp, J. M., & Belohoubek, P. (2001). Factors affecting successful

implementation of high performance teams. Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, 7(8), 123 – 134.

Cattel, J. M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373-380.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: Elsevier.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor

Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Ceci, S. J. (1990). On Intelligence, more or less: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Century Psychology Series.

Ceci, S. J.; Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive

complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(3), 255–266.

Ceruzzi, P. (2003). A history of modern computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cetindamar, D. (2003). The growth of venture capital: A cross cultural comparison. Westport, CT:

Praeger.


Chamberlin, E. H. (1984). The source of positivism in economics. Economica. 51(203). Wiley.

London.

Charness, N. (1976). Memory for chess positions: Resistance to interference. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 641–653.

Charness, N., Krampe, R. T., & Mayr, U. (1996). The role of practice and coaching in

entrepreneurial skill domains: An international comparison of life-span chess skill

acquisition. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert

performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games, (pp. 51–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chinchester: Wiley.

Chein, I. (1972). The science of behaviour and the image of man. New York: Basic Books.

Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structure and memory development. In R. Siegler (Ed.),

Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T. H. (1981). Knowledge development and memory performance. In M. Friedman, J.P.

Das & N. O'Conner (Ed.). Intelligence and Learning, (pp. 221-230). New York: Plenum

Press.

Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson,

N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise

and expert performance, (pp. 21-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics

problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 1, (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Child, I. L. (1962). A study in esthetic judgement. New Haven: Yale University.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovators dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail.

Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Christensen,C., Heckerling, P. S., Mackesy, M. E., Berstein, L. M., & Elstein, A. S. (1991).

Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Academic Medicine, 66, 76–78.


Cincotta, P. R., & Engelman, R. (1997). Economics and rapid change: The influence of population growth.

Occassional Paper.Washington, DC: Political Action International.

Clancey, W. J. (2006). Observation of work practices in natural settings. In K. A. Ericsson, N.

Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and

expert performance, (pp. 127-146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Clark, L. A, & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organising paradigm for trait psychology.

In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 265-

286). New York: The Guilford Press.

Clore, G. C. (1994). Why emotions are felt. In P. Elkman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of

emotion, (pp. 103-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, M. D.; March, J. G.; & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational

choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance,

and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Colley, A., Banton, L., & Down, J. (1992). An expert-novice comparison in musical

composition. Psychology of Music, 20, 124–137.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York:

HarperCollins.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2000). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. London:

Random House Business Books.

Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Coney, J., & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: A

new approach to Mednick's theory of associative Hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior,

29(2), 109-132.

Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2003). Evolutionary psychology: Theoretical foundations. In L Nadel

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, (pp. 54-64). London: Macmillan.

http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/A0529.pdf


Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. London: Simon & Schuster.

Cowan, N., Chen, Z., & Rouder, J. N. (2004). Constant capacity in an immediate serial-recall

task: A logical sequel to Miller (1956). Psychological Science, 15, 634-640.

Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses: Genetic studies of genius, Vol II.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Craig, R. T., & Muller, H. L. (2007). Theorizing communication: Readings across traditions. Los Angeles:

Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los

Angeles: Sage Publications.

Creswell, T., & Fabinyi, M. (1999). The Real Thing: Adventures in Australian Rock and Roll. Sydney:

Random House.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist,

30, 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper Collins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San

Fransisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Attention and the holistic approach to behaviour. In K. S. Pope &

J. L. Singer (Eds.), The stream of consciousness, (pp. 335-358). New York: Plenum.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Ed.). (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological studies

of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York:

Harper Collins.

Cull. M (2009) The rise of the financial planning industry. Australasian Accounting Business &

Finance Journal, 3(1), 26-37.


Cutler, T. (2008). Venturous Australia: Building strength in innovation. Australian Government

Department of Industry. Retrieved from

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/Policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnova

tionSystem.aspx.

Dacey, J. S., & Lennon, K. H. (1998). Understanding creativity: The interplay of biological, psychological

and social factors. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Dacey, J., & Packer, A. (1992). The nurturing parent. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dacey, J. S., & Ripple, R. (1969). Relationships of some adolescent characteristics and verbal

creativity. Psychology in the Schools, 6(3), 321-324.

Dackis, C. A., & Gold, M. S. (1985). New concepts in cocaine addiction: The dopamine

depletion hypothesis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 9(3), 469-477.

Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Dai, D. Y. & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114-130.

Damasio, A. R., Grabowski, T., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L.L., Parvizi J. (2000).

Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self‐generated emotions.

Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1049–1056.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races

in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.

Davis, L. E. (1979). Job Design: Historical Overview. In L. E. Davis & J. C. Taylor (Eds.),

Design of jobs, (pp. 29-35). Santa Monica: Good Year.

Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.

Dax, M. (1836). Lésions de la moitié gauche de l'encéphale coïncident avec l'oubli des signes de

la pensée. Bulletin hebdomadaire de médecine et de chirurgie, 2, 259-62.

Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49-81.

De Bono, E. (1967). The use of lateral thinking. London: Trafalgar Square.

De Bono, E. (1976). The mechanism of mind. London: Penguin Books.

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/Policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/Policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx


de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York. Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York. Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New

York: Plenum.

Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Deery, S. J. & Plowman, D. H. (1991). Australian industrial relations. Glenroy: McGraw-Hill.

de Groot, A. (1965). Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton & Co Publishers.

de Guerre, D. W., Emery, M., Aughton, P., Trull, A. S. (2008). Structure underlies other

organizational determinants of mental health: Recent results confirm early

sociotechnical systems research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 359-379.

Denny, N. W. (1982). Aging and cognitive changes. In B. B. Wohlman (Ed.), Handbook of

Developmental Psychology, (pp.807-827). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

DeRose, K. (2011). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, scepticism and context, Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Descartes, R. (1649). Passions of the soul. (Voss, S.H, 1989. Translated). Indiannapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction into the philosophy. New York: The Free

Press.

Diamond, S. A. (1996). Anger, madness and the diamonic: The psychological genesis of violence, evil and

creativity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ

paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108(2), 346-369.

Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11,

1011-1026.

Dimitrov, V. (2005). A new kind of social science: Study of self organisation of human dynamics.

Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.


Dmitrieva, E. S., Gelman, V. Y., Zaitseva, K. A. & Orlov, A. M. (2006). Ontogenetic features of

the psychophysiological mechanisms of perception of the emotional component of

speech in musically gifted children. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 36, 53–62.

Doane, S. M., Pellegrino, J. W., & Klatzky, R. L. (1990). Expertise in a computer operating

system: Conceptualization and performance. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 267-304.

Downs, B. W., Oscar-Berman, M., Waite, R. L., Madigan, M. A., Giordano, J., Beley, T., Jones,

S., Simpatico, T., Hauser, M., Borsten, J., Marcelo, F., Braverman, E. R., Lohmann, R.,

Dushaj, K., Helman, M., Barth, D., Schoenthaler, S. T., Han, D., & Blium, K. (2013).

We have hatched the addiction egg: Reward deficiency syndrome solution system.

Journal of Genetic Syndromes & Gene Therapy, 4(136).

Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1985). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the

era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hogan, R. (1987). A taxonomy for composing effective naval teams. Orlando,

FL: Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division.

Drucker, J., & McVarish, E. (2009). Graphic design history: A critical guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education

Drucker, P. (1973). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.

Dudek, S. Z., Hall, W. (1991). Personality consistency: eminent architects 25 years later. Creativity

Research Journal, 4, 213-32.

Duff, W. (1767). An essay on original genius and its various modes of exertion. London: Octavo.

Duffy, L., Baluch, B., & Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Gender differences in dart performance: The

effects of physical size and differential recruitment rates. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 35, 232-245.

Duncker, K. (1945). On Problem Solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 1-113.

Dunphy, D., Benveniste, J., Griffiths, A., & Sutton, P. (2000). Sustainability: The corporate challenge

of the 21st century. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Dunstan, K. (1968). Wowsers. Melbourne: Cassell.

Durr, W. H. (1964). The gifted student. New York: Oxford University Press.


Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia:

Psychology Press.

Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote

learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452.

Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano,G. P. (2001). Distrupted routines: Team learning

and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,

685–716.

Egan, G. (2009). The skilled helper: A problem management and opportunity development approach to

helping. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole Cengage Learning.

Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory and

Cognition, 7(2), 149-158.

Eisenstadt, M., & Kareev, Y. (1979). Aspects of human problem solving: The use of internal

representations. In Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.), Exploration in cognition.

San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248-267.

Eisler, R. (1988). Lead Hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. Biological report 85.

Laurel, Maryland: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Eisler, R. (1995). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Weinbruch, C., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical

representation of the fingers of the left hand. Science, 2(70), 305–307.

Elder, B., & Wales, D. (1984). Radio with pictures: The history of Double Jay AM and JJJ FM. Sydney:

Hale & Ironmonger.

Ekman, P. (1994). Moods, emotions, and traits. In P. Ekman & R. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of

emotion: Fundamental questions, (pp. 56-58). New York: Oxford University Press.


Emery, F. E. (1976). Causal path analysis. In E. Trist, F. Emery & H. Murray (Eds.), The social

engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology: The socio-ecological perspective, Vol III (pp.

328-335). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Emery, F. (1977). Futures we are in. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Emery, F. E. (Ed.). (1978). Systems Thinking. New York: Penguin.

Emery, F. E. (1997). Foreword. E. Trist, F. E. Emery & H. Murray, H. (Eds.), The social

engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology: The socio-ecological perspective, Vol III, (p. XI).

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Emery, F. E. (1999). The perceptual logic of creativity. In A. Montuori, & R. E. Purser (Eds.),

Social Creativity: Vol II, (pp.91-124). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Emery, F. E., & Emery, M. (1979). Project Australia: Its chances. Canberra, Centre for Continuing

Education: Australian National University.

Emery, F. E., & Emery, M. (1980). Domestic market segments for the telephone. Melbourne: PA

Consulting Services.

Emery, F. E., & Emery, M. (1997). Towards a logic of hypothesis: Everyone does research.

Concepts and Transformations. 2(2), (pp. 119-144) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Emery, F. E., & Oeser, O. A. (1958). Information decision and action: A study of the psychological

determinants of changes in farming techniques. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Emery, F. E., & Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and content in industrial democracy: Some experiences from

Norway and other European countries. London: Tavistock Publications.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organisational environments. Human

Relations, 18, 21-32.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1972). Towards a social ecology. London: Plenum-Rosetta

Emery, M. (Ed.), (1993). Participative design for participative democracy. Canberra: Centre for

Continuing Education: Australian National University.

Emery, M. (1999a). Searching: The theory and practice of making cultural change. (Dialogues on work and

innovation). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


Emery, M. (1999b). The open systems personality test: Validity, reliability and consistency. Unpublished

manuscript.

Emery, M. (2000). The current version of Emery’s open systems theory. Systemic Practice and

Action Research, 13(5), 623-643.

Emery, M. (2009). Beliefs and actions about climate change: Results of a pilot segmentation study.

Unpublished manuscript.

Emery, M. (2010). When the cure is the cause: The absenteeism and turnover problems. The

Public Sector Innovation Journal. 15(1), 1-18.

Emery, M. (2011). Fiddling while the planet burns: The scientific validity of chaordic systems

thinking. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 28, 401-417.

Emery, M., & Purser, R. (1996). The search conference: A powerful method for planned organizational

change and community action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),

Goal concepts in personality and social psychology, (pp. 87-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Emmons, R. A. (1989). Exploring the relations between motives and traits: The case of

narcissism. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and

emerging directions, (pp. 32-44). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science,

196, 129-196.

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.

Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-10.

Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 321–325.

Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance

and performance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 50-66.

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences,

sports and games. Mahwah NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of

maximal adaptation to task. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305.


Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The Scientific Study of Expert Levels of Performance: General

Implications for Optimal Learning and Creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75-100.

Ericsson, K. A. (1999). Creative expertise as superior reproducible performance: Innovative and

flexible aspects of expert performance. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 329–333.

Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), (2006). The Cambridge

handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the

acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

Ertl, J., & Schafer, E. (1969). Brain response correlates of psychometric intelligence. Nature, 223,

525-526.

Evetts, J., Mieg, H.A., & Felt, U. (2006). Professionalization, Scientific Expertise, and Elitism: A

Sociological Perspective. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R.

Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 105-126).


Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research, (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford.

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity: Problems in the behavioural sciences.


Eysenck, H.J., & Barrett, P.T. (1993). Brain research related to giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J.

Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness

and talent, (pp. 115-127). Oxford: Pergamon.

Faraday, M. (1859). Various forces of matter and their relation to each other. In W. Crooks

(Ed.), A course of six lectures on the various forces of matter. London: R. Griffin & Company.

Faw, T. T. (1970). The effects of stimulus incongruity on the free looking time of adults and

children. Psychonomic Science, 19, 355–357.

Feldhusen, J. F. & Jarwan, F. A. (1993). Identification of gifted and talented youth for

educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), (1993).

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Creativity-Problems-Behavioural-Sciences/dp/0521485088/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329162998&sr=1-1-spell


International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, (pp. 233-252).

Oxford: Pergamon.

Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world. A framework for

the study of creativity. Westport, CT. Praeger.

Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1991). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of

human potential. New York: Teachers College Press.

Feltovich, P. J., Johnson, P. E., Moller, J. H. & Swanson, D. B. (1984). LCS: The role and

development of medical knowledge in diagnostic expertise. In W. J. Clancey & E. H.

Shortliffe (Eds.), Readings in medical artificial intelligence: The first decade, (pp. 275-319).

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Feltovich, P. J., Pietula, M. J. & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological

perspectives. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),

The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 41-68). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fiest, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.

Findlay, C. S. & Lumsden, C. (1988). The creative mind. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human performance. Oxford: Brooks and Cole.

Flannery, T. F. (2005). The weather makers: How man is changing the climate and what it means for life on

earth. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 – 911.

Flavel, J. H., & Draguns, J. (1957). A microgenetic approach to perception and thought.

Psychological Bulletin, 54, 197–217.

Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.


Ford, H. & Crowther, S. (1926). Today and tomorrow. New York, USA: Doubleday, Page &

Company.

Fournier, E. (2012). Navigating M&A deals in the Asia-Pacific: Leading lawyers on examining the trends

and strategies impacting mergers and acquisitions in the Asia-Pacific. Thomson Reuters Westlaw.

Retrieved from www.westlaw.com.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Attachment theory and its place in contemporary

personality research. In O. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of

Personality, (pp. 518-541). New York: Guilford Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Freeman, C. (1977). The Kondratiev long waves, technical change and unemployment. In

OECD (Ed.). Structural determinants of employment and unemployment, Vol II, (pp. 183-202).

OECD: Paris.

Freeman, C. (1983). Long waves in the world economy. Butterworths: London.

Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women. Retrieved from Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005016.pdf.

Freeman, J. (1979). Gifted children: Their identification and development in a social context. Lancaster:

MTP Press.

Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to

know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, Vol 5,

(pp. 157-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Freud, S. (1895). Studies in hysteria. (Breuer, J, Translated 1937). New York: Nervous and Mental

Disease Publishing.

Freud, S. (1928). The future of an illusion. London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lessons on psycho-analysis. New York: W.W Norton & Company.

Freud, S. (1957). A mythological parallel to a visual obsession: The complete psychological works of Sigmund

Freud, Vol. XIV. (Strachey, J. Translated). London: Vintage.

http://www.westlaw.com/


Frijda, N. H. (1994). The lex talionis: On vengeance. In S. H. M. van Goozen, N. E. van der

Poll, & J. A. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory, (pp. 263-289). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Frith, U. (Ed.). (1980). Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic Press.

Fritz, J. B., Elhilali, M., & Shamma, S. A. (1993). Adaptive changes in cortical receptive fields

induced by attention to complex sounds. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 2337-2346.

Furneaux, W. D. (1960). Intellectual abilities and problem solving behaviour. In Eysenck, H. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology, (pp. 167–192). London: Pergamon Press.

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a Reexamination of the Definitions Gifted

Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gagné, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A.

Heller F. J. Mönks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and

Development of Giftedness and Talent, (pp. 63–85). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the

language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111.

Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J.

Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (pp. 98-119). New York:


Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. (1972). Lateral specialization of cognitive mode: An EEG study.

Psychophysiology, 9, 412-418.

Gallwey, W. T. (1974). The inner game of tennis. New York: Random House.

Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable Thoughts: Education of Gifted Students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 44, 5-12.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. London: Thoemmes Continuum.

Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: MacMillan & Co.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: MacMillan & Co.

Gardner, H. E. (1982). Art, mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic

Books.


Gardner, H. E. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein,

Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Ghandi. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. E. (1993a). Multiple intelligences. Basic Books: New York.

Gardner, H. E. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of exceptional individuals and an examination of

our extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. E. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic

Books.

Gardner, H., & Wolf, C. (1994). The fruits of asynchrony: A psychological examination of

creativity. In D. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi & H. E. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the

world: A framework for the study of creativity, (pp. 47-68). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gaser, C., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Brain Structures Differ between Musicians and Non-Musicians.

The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(27), 9240-9245.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the

corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain, 123, 1293-1326.

Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2002). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind.

New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Geary, D. C. (1995a). Sexual selection and sex differences in spatial cognition. Learning and

Individual Differences, 7, 289–301.

Geary, D. C. (1995b). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition: Implications

for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50, 24-37.

Gedo, J. E. (1996). Creativity: The burdens of talent. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 24, 103–112.

Gedo, J. E. (1996a). The artist and the emotional world: Creativity and personality. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy? New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Geisser, S. (1958). A note on McQuitty’s index of concomitance. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 18, 125-128.


Gerber, M. E. (1999). The e-myth manager: Why management doesn’t work and what to do about it. New

York: HarperCollins.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group

development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.

Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral lateralization: biological mechanisms, associations

and pathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Getzels, J. W. (1964). Creative thinking, problem-solving, and instruction. In Hilgard, E. R.

(Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem

finding in art. New York: Wiley.

Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. J. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic

order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Back Bay

Books.

Glasser, R, & Chi, M.T.H. (1988). In R. Glasser, M.T.H. Chi & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of

expertise, (pp. XV-XXVIII). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing

Company.

Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Affectivating environments in creative work. Paper presented at Dialogue and

Debate in the making of Theoretical Psychology. Santiago, Chile.

Glaveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. New

York: Springer.

Gleick, J. G. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin.


Gobet, F., & Charness, N. (2006). Expertise in chess. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.

Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert

performance, (pp. 523-538). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Recall of rapidly presented random chess positions is a

function of skill. Psychonomic Bulletin and Reviews, 3, 159–163.

Gobet, F., & Simon, H. (1998). Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis.

Memory, 6, 225-255.

Godin, S. (1999). Permission marketing: Turning strangers into friends and friends into customers. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour. In A. J.

Chapman, & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications,

(pp. 117-138). London: Transaction Publishers.

Goertzel, B. (1997). From complexity to creativity. New York: Plenum.

Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, T. G. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities. San

Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goldsmith, H. H. (1993). Temperament: Variability in developing emotion systems. In M. Lewis

& J. M. Haviland (Ed.), Handbook of emotion, (pp. 353-364). New York: Guildford Press.

Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Collier Books.

Gordon, W. J. J. (1972). Practice in synectics problem-solving. Porpoise Books.

Gordon, D. M., Edwards, R., & Reich, M. (1982). Segmented work, divided workers: The historical

transformation of labour in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gorman, C. (2001). The industrial design reader. New York: Allworth Press.

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of

gifted motivation, Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121-132.

Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early

developmental aspects. The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York: Plenum Press.


Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioural influences on gene

activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792-

802.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory administrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-

1380.

Grape, C., Sandgren, M., Hansson. L. O., Ericson, M., & Theorell, T. (2003). Does singing

promote well-being?: An empirical study of professional and amateur singers during a

singing lesson. Integrative Physiological and Behavioural Science; 38(1), 65-74.

Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organisations grow. Harvard Business Review.

50(4), 37-46.

Griffiths, M. D. (1996). Behavioural addiction: An issue for everybody? Journal of Workplace

Learning, 8(3), 19–25.

Griffiths, M. D. (1997). Exercise addiction: A case study. Addiction Research, 5, 161-168.

Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion and emotion regulation: Personality processes and individual

differences. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin, (Eds.). Handbook of personality:

Theory and research, (pp. 701-724). New York, NY: Guilford.

Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University

of Chicago.

Gruber, H. E., & Bodeker, K. (2005). Creativity, psychology and the history of science. Boston

Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 245, 1-525.

Guastello, S. (1995). Chaos, Catastrophe and Human Affairs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.

Guinness Book of Records. (2011). Guinness world records. Retrieved from

www.guinnessworldrecords.com/

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/


Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organisations: Recent research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review Psychology, 47, 308-344.

Gruson, L. M. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does practice make perfect? In J.

A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music, (pp. 91–112). Oxford, UK: Clarenden

Press.

Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man : A psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness. New Haven: Yale University,

School of Organization and Management.

Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. New Jersey. Pearson Education.

Hadamard, J. W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Haecker, V., & Ziehen, T. (1931). Beitrag zue lehre von der vererbung und analyse der

zeichnerishen und mathematishen begabung insbesondere mit bezug auf die korrelation

zur musikalischen begabug. Zeitshrift fur Psychologie, 120, 1-45: 121, 1-103.

Haier, R. J., & Jung, R. E. (2008). Brain imaging studies of intelligence and creativity: What is the

picture for education? Roeper Review, 30(3), 171–180.

Hambrick, D., & Engle, R. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and

age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis.

Cognitive Psychology, 44, 339–387.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C, K. (1999). Strategic flexibility: Managing in a turbulent environment. New

York: Wiley.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York: Harper Business.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1999). Control, chaos, control: A cybernetic view of creativity. In A.

Montuori, & R. E. Purser (Eds.), Social Creativity: Vol II, (pp. 17-32). New Jersey:

Hampton Press.

Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The suprising truth about how companies innovate.

Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.


Hargreaves, H. L. (1927). The faculty of imagination: An enquiry concerning the existence of a

general faculty, or group factor, of imagination. British Journal of Psychology, Monograph

Supplement, 3, 1-74.

Hargreaves, D., Cork, C., & Setton, T. (1991). Cognitive strategies in jazz improvisation: An exploratory

study. Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 47–54.

Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective. In M.

A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity, (pp. 143-169). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Hart, L. (1946). The strategy of the indirect approach. London: Faber and Faber.

Hartman, G. W. (1974). Gestalt psychology: A survey of facts and principles. Westport: Greenwood

Press.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azmuma & K.

Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan, (pp. 262–272). New York, NY:

Freeman and Company.

Haviland, J. M., & Lelwica, M. (1987). The induced affect response: l0-week-old infants'

responses to three emotion expressions. Developmental Psychology, 23, 97-104.

Hayes, J. R., (1981). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press.

Hayes, L. (1993). Varieties of scientific contextualism. Reno: Context Press.

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley and

Sons.

Hecht, H., & Proffitt, D. R. (1995). The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the

waterlevel task. Psychological Science, 6, 90–95.

Heckman, F. (1997). Designing organization for flow. The Journal for Quality and Participation,

March, 24-33.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1817). The philosophy of history (Sibree, J. Translated 2001). Kitchener: Batoche

Books.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Heiman, S. E. & Miller, R. B. (1989). Conceptual selling. New York: Grand Central Publishing.


Heiman, S. E., Tuleja, T., Miller, R. B., & Marriott, J. W. (2005). The new strategic selling: The unique

sales system proven successful by the world’s best companies. New York: Business Plus.

Heller, K. A. (1991). The nature and development of giftedness: A longitudinal study. European

Journal for High Ability, 2, 174-188.

Heller, K. A. (2013). Findings from the Munich longitudinal study of giftedness and their impact

on identification, gifted education and counselling. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(1),

51–64.

Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J. & Passow, A. H. (Ed.). (1993). International handbook of research and

development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon.

Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & Hodges, N. J. (1998). Team sports and the theory of deliberate

practice. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 12–34.

Henderson, S. & Walkinshaw, O. (2002). Command team assessment: Principles, guidance and

observations. Unpublished report. Fort Halstead: QuinetiQ.

Hendrickson, D. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1980). The biological basis of intelligence. In H. J.

Eysenck (Ed.), A model for intelligence. New York: Springer.

Hermann, N. (1989). The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books.

Herzberg, F. I. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Herzberg, F. I. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business

Review, 65(5), 109-120.

Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). When is personality revealed?: A motivated cognition

approach. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality,

(pp. 182-207). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hill, N. (1928). Law of success. Meriden CT: Ralston University Press.

Hill, N. A., & Schneider, W. (2006). Brain changes in the development of expertise:

Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological evidence about skill-based adaptations. In K.

A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman, (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 653-682). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.


Hodges, N. J., Starkes, J. L., & MacMahon, C. (2006). Expert performance in sport: A cognitive

perspective. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),

The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 471-488). Cambridge:


Hoffman, R. R., Trafton, G., & Roebber, P. (2005). Minding the weather: How expert forecasters think.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaption builds complexity. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, O. M., & Wright, P. M. (1989). Investigation of the

construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74(6), 951-956.

Hollingworth, L S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.

Hopkins, A. (2000). Lessons from Longford: The Esso gas plant explosion. Sydney: CCH Australia,

Hoppe, K. D., & Kyle, N. L. (1990). Dual brain creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal,

3(2), 150-157.

Horton, D. L., & Mills, C. B. (1984). Human Learning and Memory. Annual Review of Psychology,

35, 361-394.

Howard, J. (2010). Lazarus rising. Sydney: Harper Collins.

Hubbard, G., Samuel, D., Cocks, G., & Heap, S. (2002). The first XI: Winning organisations in

Australia. Milton: John Wiley & Sons.

Hudson, K. (2001). Designing a continuously creative organisation. Unpublished PhD thesis, University

of Western Sydney. Retrieved from

http://library.uws.edu.au/uws_library/services/external-students.

Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.


Hunt, E. (2006). Expertise, talent and social encouragement. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.

J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert

performance, (pp. 31-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hur, Y. M., & Bouchard, T. J. (1997). The genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation

seeking traits. Behaviour Genetics, 27(5), 455-463.

Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ichheiser, G. (1949). Misunderstandings in human relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem

solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122-1131.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1975). Further studies on the effect of feeling good on helping.

Sociometry, 38(1), 141-147.

Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy.

Social Cognition, 2, 18–31.

Isen, A. M., Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social

categorization. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 65-78.

Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on social psychology: When the

chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 194–202.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum.

Jackendoff, R. (1992). Languages of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackson, S. A. (1993). Elite athletes in flow: The psychology of optimal experience in sport. Doctoral

Dissertation. Greensboro: University of North Carolina: Dissertation Abstracts

International, 54, 124A.

Jackson, S. A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow states in elite athletes. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 135-163.

Jackson, N. E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1986). A conception of giftedness designed to promote

research. In R. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (pp. 151-181).



Jackson, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and

performances. Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Jamison, K. R. (1997). An unquiet mind: A memoir of moods and madness. New York: Vintage Books.

Jansma, J. M., Ramsey, N. F., Slagter, H. A., & Kahn, R. S. (2001). Functional anatomical

correlates of controlled and automatic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13,

730-743.

Jaques, E. (1951). The changing culture of a factory: A study of authority and participation in an

industrialised setting. London: Tavistock.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Educational

Review, 39(1), 1-23.

Jensen, A. R. (1983). Effects of inbreeding on mental ability factors. Personality and individual

differences, 4, 71-84.

John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor

(Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions, (pp. 261-271). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory--Versions 4a and 54.

Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto. C. J. (2008). In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin

(Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 114-158). New York: The Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), (2008). Handbook of personality: Third Edition:

Theory and research. New York: The Guilford Press.

Johnson, K. E., & Eilers, A. T. (1998). Effects of knowledge and development on the extension

and evolution of subordinate categories. Cognitive Development, 13, 515–545.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Reasoning, imagining, creativity. Bulletin of British Psychological Society,

40, 121-129.

Jordan, N. (1981). The wisdom of plato. Washington DC: University Press of America.

Josephs, R. A., Markus, H., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391-402.


Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Temeramental factors in human development. American

Psychologist, 46, 856-862.

Kanevsky, L. S. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem solving

strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115-140.

Kanevsky, L. S., & Geake, J. (2004). Inside the zone of proximal development: Validating a

multifactor model of learning potential with gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

28(2), 182–217.

Kant, I. (1764). Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and the sublime. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Kapferer, J. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking.

London: Kogan Page.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston:

Harvard Business Review Press.

Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8,

311-365.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance

organisation. New York: Harvard Business School Press.

Katz, A. (1997). Creativity and the cerebral hemispheres. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity

research handbook, 1, 203-226. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). Origins of order: Self organisation and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Kauffman, S. A. (1996). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self organisation and complexity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, J. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. (Cambridge handbooks

in psychology). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kayes, D. C. (2004). The 1996 Mt. Everest climbing disaster: The breakdown of learning in

teams. Human Relations, 57(10), 1236-1284.

Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Kelley, T. L. (1926) The influence of nurture upon native differences. New York: Macmillan.


Kellmer-Pringle, M.L. (1970). Able misfits: The educational and behavioural difficulties of intelligent

children. London: Longman.

Kellogg, R.T. (2006). Professional writing expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.



Kelly, T., Littman, J., & Peters, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO,

America’s leading design firm. New York: Random House.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. New York: MacMillan.

Kincaid, H. (2012). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of social science. Oxford University Press. New

York.

Klahr, D, & Simon, H. A. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes.

Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Klein, G. A. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The

assessment of goals commitment: A measurement model meta analysis. Organisational

Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55.

Klimoski, R., & Jones, R.G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making: Key issues in

matching people and teams. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and

decision making in organisations (pp. 291-332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammad, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of

Management, 20, 403–437.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Penguin Books.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Lund Humphries.

Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: creativity, metaphor, and

cognitive styles, In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 3, 630–706. New

York: Academic Press.


Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other

bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I.Q. (1998). Brain plasticity and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,

43-64.

Konrich, M. (1965). Underachievement. Springfield: C.C Thomas.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1990). The leadership challenge. San Franscisco: Jossey Bass.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change: An action plan from the world’s foremost expert on business leadership.

New York: Perseus Distribution Services.

Kotter, J. P. & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2011). Principles of marketing. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt Psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York:

Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Kondratieff, N., Daniels, G., & Snyder, J.M. (1984). Long wave cycle. Boston: E.P Dutton.

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2011). Blur: How to know whats true in the age of information overload.

Washington: Bloomsbury.

Kozlowski, S. W. J, & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organisations. In W. C.

Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and

organisational psychology, (pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.

Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory,

principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & A.

Dougals (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership, (pp. 253–

291). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Krampe, R. T., & Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Maintaining excellence: Deliberate practice and elite

performance in younger and older pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125,

331-359.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K. A.

Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development, (pp. 3–

25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


Kraus, S. J. (2002). Psychological foundations of success: A Harvard trained scientist separates the science of

success from self help snake oil. San Francisco: Next Level Sciences.

Krause, W. (1932). Experimentelle untersuchungen uber die vererbung der zeichnerishen

begabung. Zeitshrift fur Psychologie, 126, 86-145.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Kris, E. (1952). Introduction. In Greenacre, P. (Ed.), Trauma, growth, and personality, (pp. IX-XII).

New York: Norton.

Kroeber, A. L. (1944). Configurations of cultural growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W. (2008). Behavioural genetics and personality: A new look at the

integration of nature and nurture. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Ed.),

Handbook of personality, (pp. 287-310). New York: The Guilford Press.

Krugman, H. E. (1943). Affective response to music as a function of familiarity. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 388-392.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, L. (2008). Complexity and Educational Research: A Critical reflection. In M. Mason

(Ed.), Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, (pp. 169-180). Chinchester: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Kuhn, L. (2009). Adventures in complexity for organisations near the edge of chaos. Devon: Triarchy

Press.

Lamarck, J. (1809). Philosophie zoologique. Paris: Dentu.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

LaPorte, T. R., & Consolini, P. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical

challenges of high-reliability organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 1(1), 19-47.


Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance

in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A

review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-39.

Laszlo, E. (1996). The systems view of the world: A holistic vision for our time. Broadway: Hampton

Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Leckart, B. T., & Bakan, P. (1965). Complexity judgements of photographs and looking time.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21, 16-18.

LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Emotion and the amygdala. In J. P. Aggleton (Ed.), The amygdala:

Neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction, (pp. 339–351). New York:

Wiley-Liss.

Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lehman, A. C., & Gruber, H. (2006). Arts sports and motor skills: Music. In K. A. Ericsson, N.

Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and

expert performance, (pp. 457-470). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leibnitz, G. W. F. (1890). The philosophical works. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor

Publishers.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology, (Heider, F., & Heider, G.M. Translated). New

York: McGraw Hill.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1999). Intention, will and need. In M. Gold (Ed.), The complete social scientist, (pp. 83-

116). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally

created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301.

Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific

influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.


Lerner, J., Leamon, A., & Hardymon, F. (2012). Venture capital, private equity, and the financing of

entrepreneurship. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lesgold, A. M. (1988). Problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of

human thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesgold, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1982). How reading disabilities develop: Perspectives from a

longitudinal study. In J. P. Das, R. Mulcahy & A.E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and Research in

Learning Disabilities, (pp. 155-187). New York: Plenum.

Levenson, R. W. (1994). The intrapersonal functions of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5),

481-504.

Lewandowsky, S., Dunn, J. C., Kirsner, K., & Randell, M. (1997). Expertise in the management

of bushfires: Training and decision support. Australian Psychologist, 32(3), 171–177.

Light, A. (Ed.), (1998). Social ecology after Bookchin. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills California: Sage.

Littleton, M. W. (1994). The resurgence of folk music in popular culture. National Forum, 74(4),

23-28.

Livio, M. (2003). The golden ratio: The story of Phi, the extraordinary number of nature, art and beauty.

London: Headline Review.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational behavior

and human performance, 3(2), 157-189.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and Preattention in Theories of Automaticity. The American

Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 317-339.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities:

Their nature and assessment, (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for

identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 28, 333-360.

Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk

theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32-40.

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2),

130–141.

Lotka, A. J. (1920). Analytical note on certain rhythmic relations in organic systems. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Science, 6(7), 410-415.

Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among

the gifted: Implications for the math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 1, 61-66.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (1993). Mathematically precocious students: A source of talent to

meet the nations technological needs. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond

Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education, (pp. 255-289). Norwood NJ:

Ablex.

Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of behavior. Oregon: University of Oregon Books.

Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1970). Wertheimer’s seminars revisited: Problem solving and thinking,

Vols. I, II and III. Albany: S.U.N.Y.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after

Spearman’s (1904) general intelligence, objectively determined and measured. Journal of


Luhmans, N. (2012). Introduction to systems theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. New York: Basic Books.

Lykken, D. T. (1982). Research with twins: The concept of emergenesis. Psychophysiology, 19,

361–373.


Lykken, D., &Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science,

7(3), 186-189.

MacIntyre, S. (1999) A concise history of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacKinnon, D. W: (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American

Psychologist, 20, 273-281.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR’s contribution to the conceptualisation and study of creativity.

In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzells (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity, (pp. 60-89). Chicago:

Adeline.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo,

NY: Creative Education Foundation.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1992). The highly effective individual. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence,

(pp. 179-194). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Macintyre, S. (1999). A concise history of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macquarie Concise Dictionary (Fifth Ed). (2010). Sydney: Pan MacMillan Australia.

Magyari-Beck, I. (1976). Kiserlet a tudomanyos alkotas produktumanak interdiszciplinaris

maghatarozasara. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Magyari-Beck, I. (1993). Creatology: A potential paradigm for an emerging discipline. In S. G.

Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and

recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline, (pp. 48-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mandlebrot, B. (1977). Fractals: Form, chance and dimension. New York: W. H. Freeman &

Company.

Mandlebrot, B., & Hudson, R. L. (2004). The misbehaviour of markets: A fractal view of financial

turbulence. New York: Basic Books.

Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. J. (2005). Human resource management at work. London:

Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development.

Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organisation: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Complexity and strategic leadership. In R. Hooijberg, J.

Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. Boal & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not, Vol 4, (pp.

273-287). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the

U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.

Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity,

(pp. 137-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Martindale, C. (2007). Creativity, primordial cognition, and personality. Personality and Individual

Differences, 43, 1777-1785.

Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes,

American Scientist, 5(2), 164—179.

Marx, K. (1887). Capital: A critique of political economy: Vol 1, (Translated by Moore, S., & Aveling,

E.). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1948). The communist manefesto. Mountain View, CA: New York Labor

News.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religious values and peak experiences. Columbus Ohio: Ohio State University

Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Mason, S. T. (1984). Catecholamines of behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted

education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64-69.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. London:

D. Reidel Publishing Company.


Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human

understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

Mayfield, W. A., Kardash, C. M., & Kivlighan, D. M. (1999). Differences in experienced and

novice counselors’ knowledge structures about clients: Implications for case

conceptualization. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 504-514.

Mayo, E. (1949). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The Social Problems of an Industrial

Civilisation. London: Routledge.

Maxwell, J. C. (1888). An elementary treatise on electricity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

McArdle, W., Frank, K., & Victor K. (1996). Exercise Physiology. Baltimore: Williams and Watkins.

McCarthy, D. D. (2009). A critical systems approach to socio-ecological systems: Implications for social

learning and governance. Ontario: VDM Verlag.

McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1981). A metric for thought: A comparison of P300 latency and

reaction time. Science, 211, 77-79.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist. 20, 321-

333.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in

management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 731-743.

McCrae, R. R, & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.

McCrae, R. R, & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W.

Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 159-181). New York: The

Guilford Press.

McFarlane, I. (2000). The encyclopedia of Australian rock and pop. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Australia.

McGrath, M. (1994). Financial institutions, instruments, and markets in Australia. Sydney: McGraw-

Hill.

McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Reuter, H. H., & Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organization

and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 307-325.


McKinney, E. H., & Davis, K. J. (2004). Effects of deliberate practice on crisis decision

performance. Human Factors, 45, 436–444.

Mclean, I. (2012). Why Australia prospered: The shifting sources of economic growth. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

McPhedran, I. (2010). The amazing SAS: The inside story of Australia’s special forces. Sydney:

HarperCollins Australia.

McQuitty, L. L. (1964). Capabilities and improvements of linkage analysis as a clustering

method. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 441-456.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. Chicago: Open Court.

Medawar, P. B. (1969). The art of the soluble: Creativity and originality in science. London: Penguin

Books.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–

232.

Meggs, P. B. (1983). A history of graphic design. Van Nostrand: Reinhold.

Merton, R. (1961). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery. Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society, 105, 470-486.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston: Harvard

Business Review Press.

Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents

as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A followup study after 18 years. In R. F.

Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longditudinal studies in contemporary gifted

education, (pp. 212-228). Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Miller, B. L., Ponton, M., Benson, D. F., Cummings, J. L., & Mena, I. (1996). Enhanced artistic

creativity with temporal lobe degeneration. Lancet, 348, 1744-1745.

Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Miller, L. K. (1989). Musical savants: Exceptional skill in the mentally retarded. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: Integrating

dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system.

In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 208-

241). New York: The Guilford Press.

Mjøen, J. A.. (1925). Zur Urbanalyse der Musikalishen Begabung. Hereditas, 7, 161–188.

Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the

person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.

Monks, F. J., van Boxtel, H. W., Roelofs, J. J. W., & Sanders, M. P. M (1986). The identification

of gifted children in secondary education and a description of their situation in Holland.

In K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted: An international

perspective, (pp. 39-66). Toronto, Ontario: Hans Huber Publishers.

Montour, K. (1977). William James Sidis: The broken twig. American Psychologist, 32, 265-279.

Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (Ed.). (1999). Social Creativity: Vol II. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper

Review, 19, 4-12.

Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1993). Prodigies and savants: What can they teach us about

cognitive development?. In K.. Heller, F. Monks & H. Passow (Eds.), International

handbook of research on giftedness and talent, (pp. 161-181). Oxford, England: Pergamon

Press.

Morgan, G. (1996). Images of organization. London: Sage Publications.

Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement

of team behaviors in a Navy environment. Tech. Report No: NTSC TR-86-014. Orlando, FL:

Naval Training Systems Center.

Moss, S. (1984). The history of the theory of the firm from Marshall to Robinson and

Chamberlin: The source of positivism in economics. Economica, 51(203), 307-318.

Mull, H. K. (1957). The effect of repetition upon the enjoyment of modern music. Journal of

Psychology, 43, 155-162.


Mullins, L. (2004). Management and organisational behaviour. Essex: Pearson Education.

Murphy, J., & Smart, J. (1993). The forgotten fifties: Aspects of Australian society and culture in the 1950’s.

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press .

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college

age. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mushero, S. (2006). Off-shoring the middle class: Managing white collar job migration to Asia. College

Station, TX: Virtualbookworm Publishing.

Myers, L. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs type indicator. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing

Services.

Nachmanovitch, S. (1991). Free play: Improvisation in life and art. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Neary, R. S., & Zuckerman, M. (1976). Sensation Seeking, Trait and State Anxiety, and the

Electrodermal Orienting Response. Psychophysiology, 13, 205-211.

Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2001). Lessons from the top. New York: Doubleday.

Neisser, U. (1979). The control of information pickup in selective looking. In A. D. Pick (Ed.),

Perception and its development: A tribute to Eleanor J. Gibson, (pp. 201-219). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Newbold, C. T. (1999). Multiple intelligences and the artistic imagination: A case study of

Einstein and Picasso. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,

72(3), 153-155.

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processesof creative thinking. In H.E.

Gruber & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking, (pp. 63-119).

New York: Atherton Press.

Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Newton, I. (1687). The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. (Cohen, B., &

Whitman, A. Translated, 1999). California: University of California Press.


Nichols, R. C. (1964). Parental attitudes of mothers of intelligent adolescents and creativity of

their children. Child Development, 32, 502-510.

Nicki, R. M., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non representational art as a function of various

measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29(3), 237-249.

Nisbett, R. E. (2004). The geography of thought: How asians and westerners think differently–and why. New

York: Free Press.

Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why school and cultures count. New York: W.W.

Norton & Company.

Nordstrom, K., & Ridderstrale, J. (2007). Funky business forever: How to enjoy capitalism. Ontario:

Pearson Education.

Norman, G., Eva, K., Brooks, L., & Hamastra, S. (2006). In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.



North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1997). Music and consumer behaviour. In D. J. Hargreaves &

A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music, (pp.268–289).Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

O’Boyle, M. W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and

their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30(3), 181–186.

Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambridge:


Ogburn, W. F., & Thomas, D. (1922). Are inventions inevitable? Political Science Quarterly, 37(1),

83-98.

O’Neill, W. L. (2011). Dawning of the counter-culture: The 1960’s. Now and then Reader. LLC.

Orasanu, J. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making. Princeton, NJ: Cognitive Sciences

Laboratory, Princeton University.

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analysing sustainability of social ecological systems.

Science, 325, 419-422.


Paris, C. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A

review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43, 1052-1075.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in

the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological

Science, 18, 948-952.

Patel, V. L, Arocha, J. F., Kushniruk, A. (2002). Patients' and Physicians' understanding of

Health and Biomedical Concepts: Relationship to the design of EMR. Systems Journal of

Biomedical Informatics, 35, 8-16.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMilan, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking

when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes; An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex.

New York : Dover Publications. (Anrep, G. V. Translation 1960).

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2001). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership.

Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115–139.

Peirce, C. S. (1984). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, 1867-1871. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.





Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1982). Analyzing aptitudes for learning: Inductive reasoning. In

Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum,

Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. California: University of California Press.

Pepper, S. C. (1970). Aesthetic quality: A contextualistic theory of beauty. Westport: Greenwood Press

Reprint.

Perkins, D. N. (1981). The Mind's Best Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Perkins, D. N., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking? In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R.

(Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and

development. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum

Perkins, J. O. N (1987). Australian macroeconomic policy (1974-1985). Melbourne University Press.

Perkins, J. O. N. (1990). The deregulation of the Australian financial system: The experience of the 1980’s.

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Perfetti, C., & Lesgold, A. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implications

for reading instruction. In B. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice in early

reading, (pp. 57-84). Hillsdale, NJ :Erlbaum Associates.

Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), (2006). Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practice and potential.

San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Peters, T. (2006). Reimagine: Business excellence in a disruptive age. New York: Dorling Kindersley

Adult.

Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of

Personal Control. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run

companies. New York: HarperCollins.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a

dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.

Phillips, I. (1987). Word recognition and spelling strategies in good and poor readers. Cambridge MA:

Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Phillips, W. (1980). Six O’clock swill: The introduction of early closing of hotel bars in Australia.

Historical Studies, 19, 250-266. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15(1),

1-12.

Piirto, J. (1998). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Texas: Prufrock Press.

Piirto, J. (2006). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Texas: Prufrock Press.


Pine II, J. (1992). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every business is a

stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pinel, J. P. J. (1997). Biopsychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pirovano, C. (1991). History of industrial design. Milan: Electa.

Plank, M. (1949). Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von

Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. In J. A. B. Verlag (Ed.), Scientific autobiography and other

Papers, (pp. 22-33). (Translation, Gaynor, F.). New York: Philisophical Library.

Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict

grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for

academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96–116.

Plomin, R. (1989). Environment and genes: Determinants of behavior. American Psychologist, 44,

105-111.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of


Plomin, R., Defries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic

era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Plucker, J., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple

intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and

economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81-92.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pomerantz, E. M., & Thompson, R. A. (2008). Parents’ role in children’s personality

development: The psychological resource principle. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L.

A. Pervin (Eds.), (2008). Handbook of personality, (pp. 351-374). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Pondy, L.R., & Mitroff, I.I. (1979). Beyond open systems models of organization. Research in

organizational behaviour, 1(1), 3-39.


Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Posner, M. I. (1988). Structures and functions of selective attention. In T. Boll & B. Bryant

(Eds.), Master Lectures in Clinical Neuropsychology, (pp. 173-202). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Power, M. L., & Schilkin, J. (2009). The evolution of obesity. Baltimore: The John Hopkins

University Press.

Prentky, R. A. (1980). Creativity and psychopathology. New York: Praeger.

Preyer, G. (2005). Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Prigogine, I., & Nicolis, G. (1977). Self organisation in non equilibrium systems: From dissipative

structures to order through fluctuations. New York: Wiley.

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in

modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ramachandran, V. S., Blakeslee, S. & Sacks, O. (1999). Phantoms in the brain: Probing the mysteries of

the human mind. New York: Harpercollins.

Raskar, P., van Vliet, T., van der Broek, H., & Essens, P. (2001). Team effectiveness factors: A

literature review. Soesterberg: TNO Technical Report.

Raskin, E. A. (1936). Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of

eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 31, 20–35.

Ravizza, K. (1973). A study of the peak experience in sport. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of

Southern California.

Rawlins, A. (1986). Festivals in Australia: An intimate History. Spring Hill, Vic: Down to Earth

Publishers.

Reber, A. (1985). Syntactical learning and judgement, still unconscious and still abstract:

Comment on Dulany, Carlson and Dewey. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114(1), 17-

24.

Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of

acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1-44.

Reilly, F. K., & Brown, K. C. (2008). Investment analysis and portfolio management. New York: South

Western College Publishers.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60,

180-184.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for

creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness,

(pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reflections, perceptions and future directions. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 23, 125-146.

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for

promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Ed.). Conceptions

of Giftedness (2nd ed.), (pp. 246-279). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Retstak, R. M. (1991). The brain has a mind of its own. New York: Harmony Books.

Revelle, W. (1987). Personality and motivation: Sources of inefficiency in cognitive

performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 436-452.

Revesz, G. (1925). The psychology of a musical prodigy. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Richards, R. L. (1981). Relationship between creativity and psychopathology. An evaluation and

interpretation of the evidence. Genetic Psychological Monograph, 103, 261-324.

Richards, R. (1996). Does the lone genius ride again: Chaos, creativity and community. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 36(2), 44-60.

Rimm, S. B. (1986). Underachievement syndrome: Causes and cures. Watertown, WI: Apple Publishing.

Rimm, S. B. (2001). Underachievement: A continuing dilemma. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.). Underserved

gifted populations, (pp. 349-360), Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption. Journal of Consumer Culture,

10(1), 13-36.

Robbins, A. (1997). Unlimited power: The new science of personal achievement. New York: Free Press.


Robbins, S. P., & Barnwell, N. (1994). Organisational theory in Australia. Brisbane: Prentice Hall.

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 375-398). New York: The Guilford Press.

Robert, J. (1990). Market volatility. Boston: MIT Press.

Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2008). Naturalizing the self. In O. P. John,

R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 421-447). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P.R. (1998). Giftedness and exceptionality examined. Annual

Review of Psychology. 49, 117-139.

Robinson, N. M., Zigler E., & Gallagher J. J. (2000). Two Tails of the Normal Curve:

Similarities and Differences in the Study of Mental Retardation and Giftedness.

American Psychologist, 55, 1413-1424.

Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2000). The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: An

incentive-sensitization view. Addiction, 95(8)(2), 91–117.

Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.

Rogers, C. R. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.

Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2009). ArtScience: The essential connection. Leonardo, 42(3), 265-265.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects

in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rosenbaum, D. A., Augustyn, J. S., Cohen, R. G., & Jax, S. A. (2006). In K. A. Ericsson, N.

Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and

expert performance, (pp. 505-522). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenfield, I. (1988). The invention of memory: A new view of the brain. New York: Basic Books.


Rossi, A. M., & Solomon, P. (1964). Button pressing for a time off reward during sensory

deprivation: Relation to change in ratings of well-being. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19(2),

520-522.

Rosson, M. B. (1985). The role of experience in editing. Proceedings of Interact 84 IFIP Conference on

Human-Computer Interaction, (pp. 45–50). New York: Elsevier.

Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.

Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, (pp. 37–54). London:

Wiley.

Rothenberg, A. (1971). The process of janusian thinking in creativity. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 24, 195-205.

Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess: The creative process in art, science and other fields. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness: New findings and old stereotypes. Baltimore, MD: John

Hopkins University Press

Rothenberg, A., & Wyshak, G. (2004). Family background and genius. Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry, 49(3), 185-191.

Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in

the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.

Rubin, K. H. (1982). Non-social play in pre-schoolers: Necessarily evil? Child Development, 53,

651-657.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1979). Analogical processes and procedunal representations. CHIP Report #81. San

Diego: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California.

Runco, M. A. (2006). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development and practice. Burlington:

Elsevier Academic Press.

Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), The handbook of

emotions, (pp. 605-616). New York: Guilford Publications.

Ruse, M. (2009). Defining Darwin: Essays on the history and philosophy of evolutionary biology. New York:

Prometheus Books.


Ryan, J. (2010). A history of the internet and the digital future. London: Reaktion Books.

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of

Personality, 63, 397-427.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self determination theory and the role of basic psychological

needs in personality and the organisation of behaviour. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins &

L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, (pp. 654-658). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Sabatella, M. (1996). A whole approach to jazz improvisation. Lawndale CA: ADG Productions.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S. (1992). Toward an understanding of

team performance and training. In R. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and

performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., Goodwin, G. F., & Fiore, S. M. (2006). The making of a

dream team: When expert teams do best. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.



Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations. In K.

A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), (1991). Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and

Limits, (pp. 286-300). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sandberg, A. (1995). Enriching production: Perspectives on Volvo’s Undevella plant as an alternative to lean

production. Aldershot: Avebury.

Sawyer, K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Scarr, S. (1981). Race, social class, and individual differences in IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Schaafstal, A. M., Johnston, J. H., & Oser, R. L. (2001). Training teams for emergency

management. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 615–626.

Schachtel, E. (1959). Metamorphosis. New York: Basic Books.


Schafer, E. W. P. (1982). Neural adaptability: A biological determinant of behavioural

intelligence. International Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 183-191.

Schaffer, R. H. (1988). The breakthrough strategy. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Schank, R. P, and Ableson, R. C. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Schein, E. (1996). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Schlaug, G. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for functional and structural adaptation.

New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 281-299.

Schlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K., & Winner, E. (2005) Effects of music training on the child's

brain and cognitive development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 219–

230.

Schneider, W. (1985). Toward a model of attention and the development of automatic

processing. In M. I. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance, (pp. 474-

492). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and

biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.

Schopenhauer, A. (1883). The world as will and idea, Vol III. (Haldane, R.B., & Kemp, J.

Translation, 1948). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Schull, W. J., & Neel, J. V. (1972). The effects of parental consanguinity and inbreeding. The

American Journal of Human Genetics, 24(4), 425-453.

Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),

Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, (pp. 603-633). New York: Guilford.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist

process, Vol 1 & 2. Eastford CT: Martino Publishing.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capatalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.

Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York:

Routledge.


Scott, D. M. (2011). The new rules of marketing and PR: How to use social media, online video, mobile

applications, blogs, news releases and viral marketing to reach buyers directly. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons.

Scott, D., & Moffett, A. (1977). The development of early musical talent in famous composers:

A biographical review. In M. Critchley & R. A. Henson (Eds.), Music and the brain.

Studies in the neurology of music, (pp. 174-201). London: William Heinemann Medical

Books Limited.

Seemanova, E. (1971). A study of incestuous matings: Human heredity. International Journal of

Human and Medical Genetics, 21(2), 108-128.

Selfe, L. (1977). Nadia: A case of extraordinary drawing ability in an autistic child. London: Academic

Press.

Sexton D. L., & Smilor, R. W. (1986). Art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger

Publishing Company.

Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in natural world:

Novices to experts, naıve similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 641–649.

Shanahan, P. (2001). Mapping team performance shaping factors. Fort Halstead: QinetiQ.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University

of Illinois Press.

Shaver, E., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further

exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-

1086.

Shaw, M. C., & McCuen, J. T. (1960). The onset of academic underachievement in bright

children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 103-108.

Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., Evans, A., Rapoport, J.,

& Giedd, J. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and

adolescents. Nature, 440, 676–679.


Sheahan, P. (2005). Generation Y: Thriving and surviving with generation Y at work. Prahran: Hardie

Grant Books.

Shekerjian, D. G. (1991). Uncommon genius: How great ideas are born. New York: Penguin Books.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-

being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–

497.

Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal-attainment, and the pursuit

of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

152–165.

Shiller, R. (1989). Investor behaviour in the October 1987 stock market crash: Survey evidence. Boston:

MIT Press.

Shipp, S. (2004). The brain circuitry of attention. Trends Cognitive Science, 8, 223–230.

Shutter-Dyson, R., & Gabriel, C. (Eds.), (1981). Handbook of Musical Cognition and Development.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siegler, R. S., & Kotovsky, K. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall ever the twain meet. In H.

A. Simon & W. G. Chase (Eds.), Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 394–403.

Simon, H. A.; & Gilmartin, K. J. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive

Psychology, 5, 29–46.

Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R.

Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? Hillsdale NJ: Earlbaum.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data, methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction.

London: Sage Publication Inc.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1991). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120

classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why? New York: The Guilford Press.


Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2002). Presidential IQ, openness, intellectual brilliance, and leadership:

estimates and correlations for 42 U.S. chief executives. Political Psychology, 27(4), 511-526.

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity as a constrained stochastic process. In Sternberg, R. J.

Grigorenko E. L. & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization.

Washington: American Psychological Association.

Simonton, D. K. (2008). Creativity and genius. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Third Edition: Theory and research, (pp. 679-700). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Singer, R. N., Murphey, M., & Tennant, L.K. (1993). Handbook of research on sport psychology. New

York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition' in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J.W., Howe, M. J. A., & Moore, D.G. (1996). The role of practice in

the development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 287–309.

Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Smith, S., & Myers, T. I. (1966). Stimulation seeking during sensory deprivation. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 23(3), 1151-1163.

Smith-Jentsch, K., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional

training: A strategy for guided team selfcorrection. In E. Salas & J. A. Cannon-Bowers

(Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training, (pp. 271–

297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist,

27(1), 5-32.


Snyder, A. W., & Mitchell, D. J. (1999). Is integer arithmetic fundamental to mental processing?:

The minds secret arithmetic. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological sciences, 266(1419),

537-647.

Snyder, A. W. (2001). Paradox of the savant mind: The provocative exceptions to our

understanding of intellectual ability. Nature, 413, 251-252.

Snyder, A. (2002). What makes a champion: Fifty extraordinary individuals share their insights. Sydney:

Penguin Books Australia.

Snyder A. W (2004). Autistic genius? Nature, 428, 470-471.

Snyder, A. W. (2009). Explaining and inducing savant like skills: Privileged access to lower level,

non-processed information. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Behavioural

Sciences, 364, 1399-1405.

Sommerhoff, G. (1969). The abstract characteristics of living systems. In F. E. Emery (Ed.),

Systems thinking, Vol 1, (pp. 144-203). New York: Penguin.

Sommerhoff, G. (1974). Logic of the living brain. London: Wiley.

Sonnentag, S., & Kleine, B. M. (2000). Deliberate practice at work: A study with insurance

agents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 87–102.

Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Volmer, J. (2006). Expertise in software design. In K. A. Ericsson,

N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise

and expert performance, (pp. 373-388). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance.

In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman, (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 287-302). Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of Questionnaire and TAT measures of Need for Achievement:

Two Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154.

Spearman, C. E. (1923). The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan.

Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.

Spencer, H. (1896). The study of sociology. New York: D. Appleton & Company.


Spencer, H. (1899). The principles of psychology. New York: D. Appleton & Company.

Spulber, D. F. (2009). The theory of the firm: Microeconomics with endogenous entrepreneurs, firms, markets

and organisations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Squire, L. R. (1982). The neuropsychology of human memory. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 5,

241-73.

Stacey, R. (1991). The chaos frontier: Creative strategic control for business. Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Stacey, R. (1996). Creativity and complexity in organisations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Stacey, R. (1999). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity. New

York: Prentice Hall.

Stacey, R. (2011). Strategic management and organisational dynamics. Harlow: F.T. Prentice Hall.

Stamp, D. (1995). The invisible assembly line. Boosting white collar productivity in the new economy. New

York: AMACOM.

Stankov, L. (2003). Complexity in human intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey & T. Lubart

(Eds.). Models of intelligence: International perspectives, (pp. 40-55). Washington DC:

American Psychological Association.

Stanley, B. (1905). What constitutes success. Lincoln: Lincoln Sentinel.

Stanley, T. J. (2001). The millionaire mind. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing.

Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more

precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology

Review, 15(3), 215-246.

Stelmack, R. M. (1990). Biological bases of extraversion: Psychophysiological evidence. Journal of

Personality, 58, 293-311.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge:



Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life.

New York: Penguin Putnam.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1992). On being an expert; a cost-benefit analysis. In R. R.

Hoffman (Ed.), The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI, (pp. 191–203).

New York: Springer Verlag.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 608–614.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity.

New York: Free Press.

Subotnik, R. F., & Coleman, L. J. (1996). Establishing the foundations for a talent development

school: Applying practices to creating an ideal. Journal for the education of the gifted, 20, 175-

189.

Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review,

26, 14-15.

Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great

performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (pp.

343–357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sumerling, P. (1998). Down at the local: A social history of the hotels of Kensington and Norwood. Kent

Town, SA: Wakefield Press.

Sundberg, J. (1987). The science of the singing voice. Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1976). The psychology of play. New York: Arno Press

Sutton-Smith, B. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Sutton-Smith, B. (2005). Play: An interdisciplpinary synthesis. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.


Swann, W. B., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Identity negotiation: A theory of self and social

interaction. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality,

(pp. 448-471). New York: The Guilford Press.

Swerdlow, N. R., & Koob, G. F. (1987). Dopamine, schizophrenia, mania, and depression:

Toward a unified hypothesis of cortico-striatopallido-thalamic function. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 10(2), 197-245.

Szoka, B. & Marcus, A. (2011). The next digital decade: Essays on the future of the internet.

Washington:Techfreedom.

Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Objects categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye

of the beholder. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457-482.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G.A.

Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, (pp. 27-42). Needham Heights MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Tannenbaum, S.I., Beard, R.L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team

effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley

(Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology, (pp. 117-153). New

York: Elsevier Science.

Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological Perspectives, (pp. 429-440). New York:


Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich. S. (1988).

Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1031-1039.

TenHouten, W. D. (1994). Creativity, intentionality and alexthymia: A graphological analysis of split

brained patients and normal controls, (pp. 225-250). In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.),

Creativity and affect. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


Tenenbaum, G. (2001). A social-cognitive perspective of perceived exertion and exertion

tolerance. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport

psychology, (pp. 810–822). New York: Wiley.

Terman, L. M. (Ed.). (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand

gifted children. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M. (2011). Condensed guide for the Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon intelligence tests. Ulan

Press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Genetic studies of genius, Vol IV.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life, thirty-five years follow-up of the

superior child: Genetic studies of genius, Vol III. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Thompson, L. A. (1993). Genetic contributions to intellectual development in infancy and

childhood. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Biological approaches to the study of human intelligence,

(pp.95-138). Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. In K. A. Heller,

F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of

giftedness and talent, (pp. 102-113). Oxford: Pergamon.

Thomson, G. H. (1916). A hierarchy without a general factor. British Journal of Psychology, 8, 271–

281.

Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia

University Press.

Threlfall, J., & Hargreaves, M. (2008). The problem-solving methods of mathematically gifted

and older average-attaining students. High Ability Study, 19(1), 83–98.

Thurstone, L. L. (1924). The nature of intelligence. London: Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co.

Thurstone, L. L. (1973). The nature of intelligence. London: Greenwood Press.

Tieso, C. L. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents:

A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11–22.

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.


Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect, imagery and consciousness: Volume I, the positive affects. London:

Tavistock.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative high school

students twelve years later. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 75-88.

Torrance, E. P. (1994). Why fly? Norwood, NJ: Ablex..

Torrance, E. P. (1994a). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria: Benedict Books.

Toynbee, A. J., & Somervell, D. (1963). A study of history: In two volumes. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Treffert, D. A. (1989). Extraordinary people: Understanding idiot savants. New York: Harper & Row.

Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to

gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 181-193.

Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall

method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4(3), 3-38.

Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice: Capabilities of

groups at the coal face under changing technologies: The loss, re-discovery and transformation of a work

tradition. London: Tavistock Publications.

Trist, E. & Murray, H. (Eds.), (1990). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology: The

socio-psychological perspective, Vol I. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Trist, E. & Murray H. (Eds.), (1993). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology: The

socio-technical systems perspective, Vol II. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Trist, E., Emery F., & Murray, H. (Eds.), (1997). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock

anthology: The socio-ecological perspective, Vol III. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Trost, G. (1991). Cross sectional and/or longitudinal studies. Paper presented at the 9th world conference on

gifted and talented children. The Hague: The Netherlands.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-

399.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Trist


Turner, D., & Crawford, M. (1999). Change power: Capabilities that drive corporate renewal. Sydney:

Business & Professional Publishing.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (2002). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading

organisational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Ulijaszek, S. J., Johnston, F. E., & Preece, M. A. (Eds.), (1998). The Cambridge encyclopedia of human

growth and development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Utterback, J. M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little Brown & Co.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). On the predictive effect of intrinsic, extrinsic and

amotivational styles on behaviour: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-

620.

Van Duijn, J. (1983). The long wave in economic life. Allen and Unwin. London.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading

disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-40.

Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product life cycle.

Quarterly Journal of Economics. 80(2), 190-207.

Vickers, G. (1968). Value systems and social process. London: Tavistock Publications.

Vickers, G. (1972). Foreword. F. E. Emery & E. L. Trist. Towards a social ecology, (pp. VI-IX).

London: Plenum Press.

Vicente, K. J. (1992). Memory recall in a process control system: A measure of expertise and

display effectiveness. Memory and Cognition, 20, 356–373.

Volkow, N. D., & Fowler, J. S. (1993). Addiction, a Disease of Compulsion and Drive:

Involvement of the Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 318-325.

Volterra, V. (1931), Lecions sur la Theorie Mathematique de la Lutte pour via. Paris: Gauthier Villars.

Von Ehrenfels, (1890). Über Gestaltqualitäten (English: "On the Qualities of Form”). Philosophie,

14, 249-292.

http://scriptorium.hfg-karlsruhe.de/ehrenfels.html


Von Hipple, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem-solving skill in social

sciences: The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 17,

165-213.

Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G., & Spilich, H. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge

and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 651–

667.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wagner, C. (1988). The pianist’s hand: Anthropometry and biomechanics. Ergonomics, 31, 97–

131.

Waitzkin, F. (1984). Searching for Bobby Fischer: The world of chess, observed by the father of a child prodigy.

New York: Random House.

Walker, G., Perry, L. & Murphy-Walker, T. (1987). Australian macroeconomics. Sydney: Prentice

Hall.

Wallace, A. (1986). The prodigy. New York: Dutton.

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Wallace, D. B., & Gruber, H. E. (1989). Creative people at work. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The crystallizing experience: Discovery of an intellectual

gift.In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, (pp. 306-331) New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Walther, E., Fiedler, K., & Nickel, S. (2003). The influence of prior knowledge on constructive

biases. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 219–231.

Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63,

77–84.

Ward. P., Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., & Starkes, J. L. (2004). Deliberate practice and expert

performance: Defining the path to excellence. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.),


Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice, (pp. 231–258). London, UK:

Routledge.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures

and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

Warr, P. (1994). Age and employment. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4, (pp. 485–550). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Wason, P. M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. B. (1914). Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organisation. New York: Free Press.

Websters Online Dictionary (2012). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.websters-

online-dictionary.org/definitions/creativity.

Weick, K. E. (1976). The social psychology of organising. New York: McGraw Hill

Weick, K. E, & Sutcliffe, K. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of

uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In

K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of expertise and expert performance, (pp. 761-788). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Weiner, N. (1953). Ex-prodigy: My childhood and youth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham Publishing

Company.

Weiss, V. (1977). Die heritabilitaten sportlicher tests. Arzlliche Jugendkunde, 68, 168-172.

Weiss, V. (1982). Psychogenetik. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/creativity

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/creativity

http://high-reliability.org/files/Managing_the_Unexpected.pdf

http://high-reliability.org/files/Managing_the_Unexpected.pdf


Werner, H. (1957). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: International

Universities Press.

West, T. G. (1991). In the mind’s eye: Visual thinkers-gifted people with dyslexia or other learning difficulties.

New York: Prometheus Books.

Western, D., Gabbard, G. O., & Ortigo, K. M. (2008). Psychoanalytic approaches to personality.

In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and

research, (pp. 61-113). New York: The Guilford Press.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological review, 66,

297–333.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York: Macmillan

Company.

Whitmore, J. (1980). Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for performance: People skills for professionals. London: Nicholas Brealey

Publishing.

Wigner, E. (1967). Symmetries and reflections: Scientific essays. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wilding, J. M., & Valentine, E. R. (2006). Exceptional memory. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,

P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert


Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 101-114.

Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem

solving. Memory and Cognition, 26, 716–730.

Williams, J. M. (1992). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance. Mountainview

California: Mayfield Publishers.

Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1995). Declarative knowledge in sport: A byproduct of

experience or characteristic of expertise? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 259-

275.

Willingham, W. W. (1974). Predicting success in graduate education. Science, 183, 273–278.


Wilmouth, P. (1993). The Countdown years 1974-1987: Glad all over. Sydney: Penguin Books.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Winner, E. (1996). The rage to master: The decisive role of talent in the visual arts. In K. A.

Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence, (pp. 271–302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winner, E., Casey, M. B., DaSilva, D., & Hayes, R. (1991). Spatial abilities and reading deficits in

visual arts students. Empirical studies of the arts, 9, 51-63.

Winner, E., & Martino, G. (1993). Giftedness in the visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F. J.

Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness

and talent, (pp. 253-282). Oxford: Pergamon.

Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 167-183.

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962).

Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.

Whittaker, N. (2012). Making money made simple. East Roseville: Simon & Schuster.

Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux

(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: theory, research, and application, (pp. 305-330).

New York: Plenum.

Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (pp. 411‐436). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An introduction to human ecology.

Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley

Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of Sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: The Free Press.

Zuckerman, M. (1964). Perceptual isolation as a stress situation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11,

255–276.

Zuckerman, M. (1974). The sensation seeking motive. Progress in Experimental Personality Research,

7, 79-148.


Zuckerman, M. (1983). Sensation seeking and sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 285-

293.

Zuckerman, M. (1985). Sensation seeking, mania and monomines. Neuropsychobiology, 13, 121-

138.

Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality, 58, 313-

345.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation-seeking. Cambridge:


Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behaviour. Washington: American Psychological

Association.


Appendicies

Appendix 1: Participant Information Sheet

Thursday 18th September 2008

(firstname) (lastname)

Dear (name)

RE: INFORMATION SHEET, PEAK CREATIVE PERFORMANCE & EXPERIENCE

As discussed, the purpose of this letter is to formally invite you to participate in a PhD study

being conducted through the University of Western Sydney. The ethical conduct of PhD

research requires that each participant be issued with a formal information sheet and consent

form which describes the project, its ethical safeguards in detail and requires your signature to

enable the research to proceed.

The focus of the research is to identify whether there are common characteristics and patterns which

exist among elite/creative individuals and groups in business, sport, the arts and science”

To answer this question I am inviting you to participate in short discussion (approx 1 hr in

total), where we can share views and experiences in regard to these three questions. I have

distributed this invitation to a select group of ‘Professional Performance Coaches’ across

disciplines such as business, sport, the arts and science.

As a participant in this study, I will ensure you receive a full debrief of the research findings. I

also welcome the opportunity to assist you in utilising these research findings in whatever way is

most useful for you, at no expense.


I recognise that confidentiality, privacy and respect for your time, are particularly important

issues for participants involved in this type of research. Participants in this study may be

concerned about the following types of issues:

1. Personal anonymity and anonymity of clients, colleagues, friends and family.

2. Disclosure of sensitive personal information.

3. Intellectual property protection.

4. The physical time commitment required to participate.

Given the importance of these issues, I will be taking many steps to minimise the potential risks

in these four areas. Additional detail regarding these measures is provided as an attachment to

the consent form. You will be asked to sign and return this consent form prior to any research

taking place. In summary:

1. Participants will be asked to consider the level of anonymity and advise the researcher

of their requirements prior to any interview or discussion. Some participants may prefer

a transparent publication of their views, and this is available and welcomed, however

understandably other participants may appreciate a greater level of privacy. In this case I

will agree the approach with you (whether this is via the use of pseudonym or other

means) and provide you with a written commitment detailing the arrangements.

2. This research may generate discussion about your personal experiences. Participants

who are may find such a discussion uncomfortable should make a conscious decision

not to discuss personal experiences, or should make a decision not to participate in the

study. The researcher has an obligation to cease the interview process if any harm

becomes apparent.

3. This letter provides a written statement guaranteeing absolute protection of Intellectual

property. This research will only be presented to UWS examiners. The researcher must

gain the written consent of all participants before any other use of this research material

can occur. In addition, I will ensure that you have the opportunity to verify and modify

any transcripts and remove any references which you are not comfortable with. You

will also receive a hardcopy of the final PhD thesis prior to its submission so that you

can identify any issues of concern.

4. As the study is being conducted through a respected Australian University, you can be

assured that significant measures will be taken to ensure secure data storage both during

and following the completion of the research.

5. The interview process has been designed to be short, informal and flexible. This means

that it can be conducted time and location of your choosing and focus on topics that

you are most comfortable to discuss. If required the interview process can be broken

into more than one discussions. An approach which is most suitable for you will be

identified at the outset.


6. Participants may withdraw from participation in this study at any time without

explanation. This has also been outlined in the attached consent form.

7. Please feel free to contact either of my supervisors (see below) if you require any

additional information about this study.

Warm regards

John Carlisle

PhD Student

E- [email protected]

T- 02 99305020

M- 0432689180

UWS Supervisors

Dr David Wright


T- 0247517605

Dr Lesley Kuhn


T- 02 98524172

NOTE: This study has been approved by

the University of Western Sydney Human

Research Ethics Committee or Panel

(indicate Committee or Panel). The

Approval Number is HREC 07/236 If you

have any complaints or reservations about

the ethical conduct of this research, you may

contact the Ethics Committee/Panel through

the Research Ethics Officers (tel:: 02 4736

0883 or 4736 0884). Any issues you raise will

be treated in confidence and investigated

fully, and you will be informed of the

outcome.

mailto:[email protected]




Appendix 2: Participant Consent Form

Thursday 18th September 2008


Dear (name)

RE: CONSENT FORM: PEAK CREATIVE PERFORMANCE & EXPERIENCE

The completion of a consent form by interview participants is standard procedure for PhD

research. Please sign below to indicate the following:

1. that you have read the information sheet,

2. you understand the goals of this study, the role you are being asked to play, and that

you are willing to participate.

3. you have read the additional information in this consent form and consent to the

publishing of material in accordance with clause f of this consent form.

4. that you do not have any further questions of the researcher

5. acceptance of this invitation does not mean that you are obligated to continue as a

participant and that you are free to withdraw at any stage without explanation.

Please sign below to indicate that you are willing to participate in this research project on Peak

Creative Performance & Experience.

---------------------


---------------------

18/9/08


Additional Information regarding confidentiality

The following measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of your

information

a. Interviews will be held at a time(s) and location(s) which are convenient for you and

respect your privacy.

b. You may use a pseudonym or other mechanism to protect your privacy during this

research. This form contains written confirmation acknowledging the level of

confidentiality you require and must be signed prior to any interviews being conducted

(see Appendix A). You have the opportunity to alter this level of confidentiality at any

stage.

c. Additional measures to maintain your privacy or confidentiality can be agreed with you

at any time. In the event of additional measures being required, the researcher will

provide you with a signed commitment to uphold these requirements in Appendix A)

d. You may elect not to have any interviews transcribed either by video or audio.

e. This letter provides a signed confidentiality agreement provided by the researcher

giving you as a commitment that all material will only be utilised in the course of

reporting research results to the University of Western Sydney and to the supervisors

and examiners of this PhD study. Any additional use of research material which falls

outside the normal PhD candidature process will require your explicit consent.

f. All checklists, transcripts, video or audio data will be forwarded to the University of

Western Sydney upon completion of the research project. This will ensure that there

are no materials which can be accessed by any means within the public domain, other

than via standard University process. Please note that the results of the research may be

published at conferences and related forums in various formats including but not

limited, to text and powerpoint. The researcher will access this material directly from

UWS for the purposes of providing feedback to participants.

g. You will be given the opportunity to view all materials, video, audio, transcripts or the

draft dissertation itself to assure yourself of accuracy and confidentiality.

h. During the course of this research project, checklists, field notes, video and audio

material will only be accessed by the researcher and the direct supervisory group.

Following the completion of research, only the PhD dissertation (not the raw research

data or transcripts) will be publicly accessible via UWS

i. During the conduct of the research project, the following strategies will be used to

maintain confidentiality and security.

a. All transcripts will be held electronically on a non internet connected personal

computer of the researcher. This computer will be stored in locked cabinet and

will be password protected. This computer will not be transported during the

period of research.


b. All field notes will be stored in a locked filing cabinet separately to the

computer which holds electronic transcripts.

c. A consolidated copy of field notes will not be transported during the process

of research. This ensures that a complete transcript can never be reconstructed

in the case of loss or theft.

d. All video and field noted will be transported directly from the location of

interview to the storage location.

j. This letter provides you with a commitment that any type of information dissemination

(other than that required to fulfill normal PhD candidature requirements) will require

notification to all participants and receipt of written confirmation from all participants

regarding alternative uses for the dissemination of data before this can occur. In this

case all participants will be provided with an example of the type of data proposed for

dissemination and the intended audience.

Warm regards

John Carlisle

PhD Student

T- 02 99305020

M- 0432689180


Please feel free to contact either of the following faculty members at University of Western

Sydney in relation to this research. This study has been approved by the University of Western

Sydney Ethics Panel. The approval number is HREC 07/236

UWS Supervisors

Dr David Wright


T- 02 47517605

Dr Lesley Kuhn


T- 02 98524172





Level of Confidentiality

Please describe below the level of confidentiality that you require during and after this research

project i.e. absolute anonymity v complete disclosure.

(name): Date

John Carlisle: Date

Please describe below any additional confidentiality requirements that have been identified

during the research process.

(name): Date

John Carlisle: Date


Appendix 3: Framework of variables

TABLE 18: EXPLANATION OF VARIABLES AND SCALES

System

Component Category

Description/

Rationale Variable title Scale Used

Moderating

variables

Socio-economic

status.

Scoring provides the

full set in vernacular

terms, e.g. average

(a)(b). Self-report

unless otherwise

indicated

Socio-economic

status of family of

origin

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Per

son

Biological

variables

Innate abilities.

Estimate of the

average is provided by

the researcher. Scores

are checked by an

expert in relevant

field.

Breadth talent in field

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Breadth talent not in field

Expertise talent in field

Expertise talent not in field

Psychological

variables

Learned skills.

Estimate of the

average is provided by

the researcher. Scores

are checked by an

expert in relevant

field.

Breadth learned skill in field

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Breadth learned skill not in field

Expertise learned in field

Expertise learned not in field

Type of knowing.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

Knowledge of

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Knowledge about

Understanding


the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Wisdom

Personality.

Scales are obtained

from references

(g)(h). Scales

ranging from 1-5

provide adequate

differentiation

(Emery, 1999b).

Behavioural

Subjectivizer-

Objectivizer

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Behavioural

Internalizer-

Externalizer

Number of

interests/ goals

Most people (average)

have between 2 and 3

interests (c)

Number of

interests Score 1 if one goal

only. Score 3 if

more than 3 Number of life

goals

Level of

functioning.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Goal seeking

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Purposeful

Ideal seeking

Ideal-Homonomy

Ideal-Nurturance

Ideal-Humanity

Ideal-Beauty

Motivation.

Motivation varies

widely but the average

is described as ‘just

motivated’ or

‘engaged’. Estimates

follow data sets

(d)(e)(f) for motivation

Motivational level

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Dedicated = 4

Obsessed/

Compelled = 5


and engagement.

Mode of learning.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Abstraction

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Extraction

Mode of

discovery.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Induction

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Deduction

Retroduction

Affect.

Below, average

and above average

provides adequate

differentiation for

estimate.

Estimates are

taken from data

sets (e)(f) for

frequency of

affects

experienced.

Positive affect

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Negative affect

Health.

Below, average and

Mental

Below average = 1


above average gives

adequate

differentiation for

estimate. Estimates

are taken from data

sets for physical and

mental health and

relation to affects

(e)(f).

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Physical

Org

anis

atio

n

Moderating

variables

Socio-economic

status.

Scoring provides the

full set in vernacular

terms, e.g. average (i).

Self-report unless

otherwise indicated.

Socio-economic

status of

organisation

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Technological

variables

Technology level.

Estimate of average

provided by the

researcher. Scores are

checked by an expert

in the relevant field.

Technology

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Sociological

variables

Skills.

Estimate of average is

provided by the




Skills

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Organisational

structure.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence Scoring

Design principle 1

Absent = 1


follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a). DP1 is

scored as ‘absent’

if the participant

has experienced

DP1, its effects,

and has rejected it.

DP2 is scored

present if the

participant has

attempted to

produce the

structure even if it

is not technically a

DP2 structure.

Present = 4

Design principle 2

Location of

instrumentality.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Person as

instrument

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Organisation as

instrument

Variety.

Variety enhancing

and variety

reducing are

scored separately.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Variety enhancing

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Variety reducing


Intrinsic

motivators.

Scales ranging

from 1-3 provide

adequate

differentiation for

estimate (g)(h).

Elbow room

Elbow room,

variety and learning

are scored

Too little = 1

Too much = 2

Optimal = 3

Mutual support,

meaningfulness and

desirable future are

scored

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above average = 3

Set goals

Feedback

Variety

Mutual support

Social value

Whole product

Desirable future

Extrinsic

motivators.

Estimate of average

provided by the




Extrinsic

monetary.

Below average = 1

Average = 2

Above Average = 3

Extrinsic non-

monetary

Group dynamics.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a)

Dependency

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Fight flight

Pairing

Creative working

mode

Conditions for

effective

communication.

Necessary only to

Openness

Absent = 1

Present = 4 Shared field


establish presence

or absence Scoring

follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a).

Psychological

similarity

Trust

Type of

communication.

Peer-task and

asymmetrical-

formal

communication

are scored

separately. Scoring

follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a).

Asymmetrical-

formal

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Peer-task

Means of

learning/changing.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Opinion leader

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Peer group

Type of planning.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence Scoring

follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a).

Optimizing

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Active adaptive

Strategies used.


Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence Scoring

follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a).

Direct

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Indirect

Means of

adaption.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence.

Scoring follows

the definition in

the literature

(Emery, 1999a).

Tactics

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Meaningful

learning

Problem solving

Puzzle solving

Playing dead

Type of

maladaption.

Necessary only to

establish presence

or absence Scoring

follows the

definition in the

literature (Emery,

1999a).

Segmentation

Absent = 1

Present = 4

Dissociation

Doomsday

Superficiality

Law and order

Evangelicism

Social engineering

Synoptic idealism


En

vir

on

men

t

Contextual

variables

Opportunity.

Necessary only to

establish presence or

absence Scoring

follows definition of

‘affordances’ identified

in the literature

(Emery, 1999).

Opportunities

afforded

Absent = 1

Present = 4

See references in Table 2.

Appendix 4: Performer Data Table

TABLE 19: PERFORMER DATA TABLE

M1 M2 D1 D2 B1 B2

Th

e P

ers

on

Opportunities Afforded 4 4 4 4 4 4

SES 2 0 0 0 0 2

Breadth learned skill in field 3 3 3 3 3 3

Breadth learned skill not in field 0 0 1 0 2 0

Breadth talent in field 0 3 0 0 0 0

Breadth talent not in field 2 0 0 0 0 0

Expertise learned in field 4 4 4 4 4 4

Expertise learned not in field 0 0 3 3 4 0

Expertise talent in field 4 4 4 4 4 0

Expertise talent not in field 1 0 0 0 0 0

Knowledge Of 0 0 0 0 4 0

Knowledge about 4 4 4 4 4 4

Understanding 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ideal 4 4 4 4 4 4

Homonomy 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nurturance 4 4 4 4 4 4

Humanity 1 4 4 0 4 4

Beauty 4 4 4 4 0 0

Purpose 4 4 4 4 4 4

Motivation Level 5 4 4 4 4 4

Goals 1 0 1 0 1 2

Interests 1 2 3 2 1 1

Behavioural SO 1 1 1 2 1 1

Behavioural IE 2 2 4 3 5 5

Abstract 1 0 0 0 1 4

Extract 4 4 4 4 4 4

Positive affect 2 3 3 3 3 3

Negative affect 3 1 2 2 2 1

Physical health 2 0 2 0 0 2


Mental health 1 3 2 0 2 3

Th

e S

yste

m

SES 2 2 3 3 3 3

Technology 2 2 0 3 3 0

Skills 2 3 0 3 3 0

DP1 1 1 1 4 4 4

DP2 4 4 4 4 4 4

LF 0 0 1 1 1 1

Elbow room 3 3 3 3 3 3

Set goals 3 3 3 3 3 3

Feedback 3 3 3 3 3 3

Variety 3 3 3 3 3 3

Mutual support 3 3 3 3 3 3

Social value 3 3 3 3 3 3

Whole product 3 3 3 3 3 3

Desirable future 3 3 3 3 3 3

Extrinsic monetary 2 2 3 3 3 3

Extrinsic non monetary 2 3 3 3 3 3

Org as instrument 0 0 0 0 4 0

Variety increasing 3 0 0 0 0 3

Dependency 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fight Flight 0 0 0 4 4 1

Creative Working 0 4 4 0 4 0

Communication 3 3 3 3 3 3

Openness 0 0 4 0 4 0

Means of change 3 3 0 0 0 1

Optimized planning 1 0 0 0 4 4

Active adaption 1 4 0 0 1 1

Indirect strategy 1 0 0 0 0 0

Direct Strategy 0 0 0 0 4 0

Tactics 0 0 0 0 0 4

Meaningful learning 1 0 4 4 4 4

Problem solving 4 0 4 4 4 4

Puzzle Solving 0 0 4 0 1 0

Superficiality 4 0 0 0 0 0

Dissociation 4 0 4 0 0 0

Doomsday 0 0 4 0 0 0

Social engineering 4 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix 5: Observer Data Table

TABLE 20: OBSERVER DATA TABLE

Matrix of personal variables by observers

Person AT DA IG WP PT MM PJ JE

SPORT

Opportunities afforded/taken/luck X X X X X X


Above average SES X

Above average breadth learnt skill in field X

Above average breadth learnt skill not in

field

Above average expertise learnt in field X X X X X

Above average expertise learnt not in field

Above average expertise talent in field X X X X X X X

Above average expertise talent not in field X X

Knowledge about X X

Understanding X X X X X

Ideal seeking X X X

Ideal - homonomy

Ideal - nurturance X

Ideal - humanity X

Ideal - beauty X X

Purposefulness X X X X X X X

Above average motivation X X X X X 3 X X

Presence of other interest(s)/life balance X X 2 X X

Behavioural preference S X X X

Behavioural preference I X X

Behavioural preference E

Abstract knowledge X

Extract knowledge X X X X X

Above average positive affect X X X X X X X X

Below average negative affect 7

Above average physical health X 1 X X

Above average mental health X X


Accurate knowledge of self/self-aware X X

Self control X

Egocentric X

Not egocentric/team-player X 4

Good parenting

Family expectations

Crisis/ crises in life X

Necessity X


Fear of failure X

Curiosity/seeking-novelty X X X

Risk taking X

Pattern recognition X

In touch with collective unconscious X

Knowledge of environment, changing

environment X X X

Make sacrifices X X

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable X X X

The following are explanatory notes and ‘Observer’ quotes that relate to Table 20.

1. Lower health: “Most elite athletes are not healthy; They’re more stressed, and

probably less healthy than someone who is in a less stressful job”.

2. “Best to have a wide variety (of interests) very early to find the thing that really suits

you”

3. Motivation at level of obsession: “The mastery, resilience, enjoyment, do feedback

on one another and they do become more obsessed over time”. “High

performance is not a healthy state because it involves a high degree of obsession”.

“The really great ones are obsessed with what they do”. “You don’t have to be

obsessive to reach it, but you have to be obsessive when you are there”.

“Motivation is high but not obsessive; there needs to be just the right dose of this

(obsessiveness) to be a high performer”. “Knowing when to back off and when to

be flexible and creative; there’s an obsessive sort of side of the high performers”

4. Not being a team player is not contradictory to performance: “The best team

players look after their own performance”.

5. Low mental health: “Things get out of balance; much higher mental health

problems”. “They normally, compromise in terms of their involvement with their

family”. “It’s the single purpose that … leaves them inadequate in other areas of

their life”. “They can lose wider perspective and become so narrow that they can’t

cope with other sets of circumstances”. “A lot more creative people commit

suicide… the creative person tends to be more erratic, more widely fluctuating”.

6. “Making opportunities as well as taking them”

7. Higher negative affect: “They are edgy sometimes”. “You have to be cynical”. “The

moments of being successful aren’t necessarily the happiest moments because

you’re often anxious”.


Matrix of person variables by observers

Person PS PG JA JP PI PB KW MO

SPORT BUSINESS

Opportunities afforded/luck X X X 6 X X

Above average SES

Above average breadth learnt skill in field X X


field X

Above average expertise learnt in field X X X X X

Above average expertise learnt not in field X

Above average expertise talent in field X X X X

Above average expertise talent not in field X

Knowledge about X X


Ideal seeking X X X X X X

Ideal -homonomy X

Ideal -nurturance X

Ideal -humanity X

Ideal -beauty X X

Purposefulness X X X X X X X

Above average motivation 3 3 3 X X X 3 X

Presence of other interest(s)/life balance X X X

Behavioural preference S X X X X X


Behavioural preference E X X X


Extract knowledge X X X X

Above average positive affect X X X X X X

Below average negative affect 7

Above average physical health X

Above average mental health 5 X X


Accurate knowledge of self/self-aware X X X

Self control

Egocentric X X


Not egocentric/team-player X X X

Good parenting X

Family expectations X X

Crisis/ crises in life X X X

Necessity X X X

Fear of failure

Curiosity/seeking novelty X X X X X X

Risk taking X X X X X

Pattern recognition

In touch with collective unconscious X X X


environment X X X X x X

Make sacrifices

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable X X X X

Matrix of person variables by observers

Person TC GF DL GM MM NG JF DP

BUS SES POLITICAL ARTIST

Opportunities afforded/luck X X X X

Above average SES X

Above average breadth learnt skill in

field X


field X

Above average expertise learnt in field X X X X X X X

Above average expertise learnt not in

field

Above average expertise talent in field X X X X X X X

Above average expertise talent not in

field X X

Knowledge about X X X X X


Ideal seeking X X X X X X

Ideal -homonomy X

Ideal -nurturance


Ideal -humanity X X

Ideal -beauty X X X

Purposefulness X X X X X X X X

Above average motivation 3 3 X X X X 3

Presence of other interest(s)/life balance X

Behavioural preference S X X X X X X


Behavioural preference E X X X


Extract knowledge X X X

Above average positive affect X X X X X X X

Below average negative affect 7 7

Above average physical health X X 1

Above average mental health 5 5 5


Accurate knowledge of self/self-aware

Self control X

Egocentric

Not egocentric/team-player X

Good parenting X X

Family expectations

Crisis/ crises in life X X

Necessity

Fear of failure X

Communication skills X

Good interpersonal skill/people-skills X

Curiosity/seeking novelty X X X

Risk taking X X X

Pattern recognition

In touch with collective unconscious X X X


environment X X X X

Make sacrifices X

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable X X X X


Matrix of organizational variables by observers

Organization AT DA IG WP PT MM PJ JE

SPORT

Above average SES of organization X

Above average technology including

communication systems

Above average skills in organization

DP1 X X X X

DP2 X X X X X

LF

Optimal or above elbow room X X X

Optimal or above room to set goals X

Optimal or above feedback X X X X

Continuous learning/improvement [not

split into goal setting & feedback] X


Above average mutual support and

respect X X X

Above average social value X

Above average seeing of whole product X

Meaningfulness [not split into value and

see whole product] X

Above average desirable

future/multiskilled X X

Above average financial reward X

Above average non financial reward X

Dependency

Fight/flight/competition/love

competition X

Creative working mode X X X X

Asymmetrical communications/Change

through opinion leader X X X X X X

Communications between peers/Change

through working with peers X

Openness

Psychological similarity X X


Trust X X X

Type 2. Meaningful learning X

Type 3. Optimizing planning/Strategy of

direct approach/ Problem solving X X X X

Type 4. Active adaptive planning/Strategy

of indirect approach/ Puzzle solving X


Leadership X X X

Diversity of personnel/skills X

Use celebrities

Finding niche/right position X X X

Taking personal

responsibility/accountability X

Training as conditioning/on

automatic/highly unnatural training

environment

X X X X

Reputation X

Support/support staff/support

team/client X X X X X X

Team spirit/team

environment/culture/enabling

environment/ culture

X X X X

Get sense of achievement X X X

Good interpersonal relationships,

usecommunication/people skills X X

Flexible/ adaptable [org] X X X


Organization PS PG JA JP PI PB KW MO

SPORT BUSINESS

Above average SES of organization


communication systems

Above average skills in organization X X X

DP1 X X X X


DP2 X X X X Xx X X

LF X

Optimal or above elbow room X X X X

Optimal or above room to set goals X

Optimal or above feedback X X

Continuous learning/improvement [not

split into goal setting and feedback] X X X

Optimal or above variety X


respect X X X X




see whole product]


future/multiskilled X X

Above average financial reward

Above average non financial reward X X X

Dependency X

Fight/flight/competition X

Creative working mode X X


through opinion leader X X X X X X X

Communications between peers/Change

through working with peers X X X X X X

Openness X X

Psychological similarity

Trust X X X

Type 2. Meaningful learning

Type 3. Optimizing planning/Strategy of

direct approach/ Problem solving X X X X

Type 4. Active adaptive planning/Strategy

of indirect approach/Puzzle solving X X


Leadership X X X X

Diversity of personnel/skills X


Use celebrities

Finding niche/ right position X X X

Taking personal

responsibility/accountability X



environment

Reputation


team/client X X X X X X

Team spirit/team


environment/culture

X X X X X

Get sense of achievement X X X X

Good interpersonal relationships, use

communication/people skills X X X

Flexible/adaptable [org] X X


Organization TC GF DL G

M MM NG JF DP

BUS SES POLITICAL ARTIST

Above average SES of organization X X


communication systems X X X

Above average skills in organization X

DP1 X X X X

DP2 X X X X

LF

Optimal or above elbow room X X X

Optimal or above room to set goals X X

Optimal or above feedback X X

Continuous learning/ improvement

[not split into goal setting and

feedback]

X X X X




respect X X X




see whole product]


future/multiskilled X X X

Above average financial reward X X

Above average non financial reward X X

Dependency

Fight/flight/competition X

Creative working mode X X X


through opinion leader X X X X X

Communications between

peers/Change through working with

peers

X X X X

Openness

Psychological similarity X

Trust X X

Type 2. Meaningful learning X

Type 3. Optimizing planning/Strategy

of direct approach/Problem solving X X

Type 4. Active adaptive

planning/Strategy of indirect

approach/Puzzle solving

X X


Leadership X X X

Diversity of personnel/skills X X

Use celebrities X

Finding niche/ right position

Taking personal

responsibility/accountability



environment

X X


Reputation X


team/client X X X X

Team spirit/team



X X x X

Get sense of achievement X X X

Good interpersonal relationships, use

communication/people skills X X X X

Flexible/adaptable X X X


Appendix 6: Observer Correlation Matrix (MO)

TABLE 21: OBSERVER CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 R4 5 6 R7 8 9 R10 11 12 13 R14 15 R16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 R33 R34 35 R36 37 38 39 40 41

Opp

ortu

nitie

s af

ford

ed/

take

n/ lu

ck

Abo

ve a

vera

ge e

xper

tise

lear

nt in

fiel

d

Abo

ve a

vera

ge e

xper

tise

tale

nt in

fiel

d

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t

Und

erst

andi

ng

Idea

l see

king

Idea

l - b

eaut

y

Purp

osef

ulne

ss

Abo

ve a

vera

ge m

otiv

atio

n

Pres

ence

of o

ther

inte

rest

(s)/

life

bala

nce

Beh

avio

ural

pre

fere

nce

S

Ext

ract

kno

wle

dge

Abo

ve a

vera

ge p

ositi

ve a

ffec

t

Cur

iosi

ty/

seek

ing

nove

lty

Ris

k ta

king

In to

uch

with

col

lect

ive

unco

nsci

ous

Kno

wle

dge

of e

nviro

nmen

t,

chan

ging

env

ironm

ent

Ada

ptiv

e, fl

exib

le, a

dapt

able

DP1

DP2

Opt

imal

or a

bove

elb

ow ro

om

Opt

imal

or a

bove

feed

back

Con

tinuo

us le

arni

ng/

impr

ovem

ent

[not

spl

it in

to g

oal s

ettin

g &

A

bove

ave

rage

mut

ual s

uppo

rt a

nd

resp

ect

Abo

ve a

vera

ge d

esira

ble

futu

re/

mul

tiski

lled

Cre

ativ

e w

orki

ng m

ode

Asy

mm

etric

al c

omm

unic

atio

ns/

Cha

nge

thro

ugh

opin

ion

lead

erC

omm

unic

atio

ns b

etw

een

peer

s/

Cha

nge

thro

ugh

wor

king

with

pee

rs

Tru

st

Typ

e 3.

Opt

imiz

ing

plan

ning

/

Stra

tegy

of d

irect

app

roac

h/ P

robl

em

Lead

ersh

ip

Supp

ort/

sup

port

sta

ff/

supp

ort

team

/ cl

ient

Tea

m s

pirit

/ te

am

envi

ronm

ent/

cultu

re/

enab

ling

Get

sen

se o

f ach

ieve

men

t

Goo

d in

terp

erso

nal r

elat

ions

hips

, use

com

mun

icat

ion/

peop

le s

kills

Flex

ible

/ ad

apta

ble

[org

]

Spor

t

Bus

ines

s

Abo

ve a

vera

ge S

ES

of o

rgan

izat

ion

Polit

ics

Art

1 Opportunities afforded/ taken/ luck 0.5 0.3 0 0.2 0.3 -0 0.6 0.6 -0 -0 0.4 0.5 -0 -0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.5 0.2 -1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0 -0 -0 0.2 0.1 0 -1 -1 -1

2 Above average expertise learnt in field 0.5 0.5 -0 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 -1 -0 0.3 0.2 0 0.4 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.3 -0 0.2 0 0.3 -0 -0 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1

3 Above average expertise talent in field 0.3 0.5 -0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.7 -0 0.4 0.2 0.6 -0 -0 0.4 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 -0 -0 -0 0 -1 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0 -0 0.4 -0 0.1 0 -0 0.3 -1 -1 -1 -1

R4 Knowledge about 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 0.6 -1 0.3 0.2 -0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 -0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

5 Understanding 0.2 0.3 0.5 -0 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 -0 0.8 0.3 -0 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0.2 0.1 -0 0 0.2 0.2 -0 0.3 -0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 -0 -1 -1

6 Ideal seeking 0.3 0.5 0.1 -0 0.2 -0 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 -0 -0 -0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 -0 0 0.2 0.1 -0 0.2 0.3 0.2 -0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 -1 0.6 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1

R7 Ideal - beauty -0 0.2 0.2 -0 0.6 -0 0 0.1 -0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0.5 1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.7 0 0.2 0.6 -0 0.3 0.1 0.3 -0 0.2 0.5 -0 0.5 0.4 0.6 1 0.1

8 Purposefulness 0.6 0.7 0.6 -0 0.4 0.6 0 0.9 -0 0.4 0.4 0.8 -0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0 0.2 0.6 0.2 -0 0.1 0.1 0.6 -0 -0 0 0.1 0 -0 -1 -1 -1

9 Above average motivation 0.6 0.7 0.7 -0 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.9 -0 0.3 0.4 0.8 -0 0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 0 0.2 -0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0 0.2 0.1 0.5 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 -0 -1 -1 -1

R10 Presence of other interest(s)/ life balance -0 0.1 -0 -0 0.3 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.1 -0 0.1 0.3 -0 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 -0 0 -0 0.4 0.4 -0 0.1 -0 0.3 -1 -0 0.5 1 0.6 1

11 Behavioural preference S -0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 -0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 -0 0.3 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0 0.5 0.1 0.3 -0 0 0.3 -0 0.3 0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1

12 Extract knowledge 0.4 0.5 0.2 -0 0.3 0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0.2 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0.1 -0 0.4 -0 0.3 -0 0.2 0 -0 -1 -1 -1

13 Above average positive affect 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.3 -0 0.1 0.8 0.8 -0 0.4 0.2 -0 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0 -0 -0 0 -0 0.1 0.7 0.1 -0 0.2 0.3 0.5 -0 -0 -0 0.2 0.3 -0 -1 -1 -1

R14 Curiosity/ seeking novelty -0 -1 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.4 0.2 -0 0.2 0.2 -0 -0 0 -0 -0 -0 0.3 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 0.7 1 0.7

15 Risk taking -0 -0 -0 0.6 -0 -0 0.5 0 0 0.3 0.4 -0 0.2 -0 -0 0.3 0 -0 0.3 0.1 -0 -1 0.1 -0 -0 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0 0.1 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0.3 -1 0.3 -1 -1 -1

R16 In touch with collective unconscious 0.1 0.3 0.4 -1 0.8 0.3 -0 0 0.2 -0 0.1 0.4 0 -0 -0 0.2 0.1 0.4 -0 0.1 0.5 1 0.3 0.1 0.8 0 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0 1 -0 0.8 -0 1 0.6 0.6

17 Knowledge of environment, changing

environment0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 -0 0.3 -0 0.3 0.2 0.4 -0 0.4 0.2 -0 -0 0.4 0 -0 0.3 0.2 -0 -0 -0 1 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.4 -1 -1 -1

18 Adaptive, flexible, adaptable 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 -0 0.1 -0 0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 -0 -0 0.6 -0 0 0.2 -0 -0 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 0 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 -1 -1

19 DP1 0.4 0.4 0.1 -0 -0 0.5 -0 0.3 0.4 0.2 -0 0.2 0.2 -0 -0 0.4 -0 0.2 -0 0.1 -0 0 0.3 -0 -0 0.3 0 -0 -0 0.5 0 0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -1 -0

20 DP2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0 0.4 -0 0.3 -0 0.4 0.2 -0 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.4 -0 0.1 -0 -0 0.1 0 -1 -1 -1

21 Optimal or above elbow room 0.2 0 -0 0.2 -0 -0 1 0.1 0.1 0.4 -0 -0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 0.2 0.2 -1 0 0.1 -1 -0 0 -0 0.1 0 -0 0.7 -0 0.2 -0 -1 -1

22 Optimal or above feedback -0 0.1 -0 0.5 -0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.3 -0 -0 -0 0.4 -0 0.5 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0 -0 0.1 0.7 -0 -0 0 0.1 -0 0.2 0.4 0.1 -0 0.3 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1

23 Continuous learning/ improvement [not

split into goal setting & feedback]-0 0.1 -0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0 1 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -1 1 -0 -0 0 0 -0 0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.6 0.4 0.3 -1 -0 0.1 -1 -1

24 Above average mutual support and respect -0 0.2 0 -0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0 0 -0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.3 0.2 0 -0 0.1 0 -1 -1 -0 0.4 -0 -1 -1

25 Above average desirable future/ multiskilled -0 0 -1 0.3 -0 -0 0.7 -0 -0 0.3 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0.1 0 -0 -0 0 0.2 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -1 0.1 -0 -1 -0 -0 0 0.1 -0 0.5 -1 -0 -0 -1 -1

26 Creative working mode -0 0 -0 0.6 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0 -0 0.1 0.2 -0 0.8 -0 0 -0 0.1 -1 0.7 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.4 0.1 -0 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0 0.3 -0 -1 -0 -1 -1

27 Asymmetrical communications/ Change

through opinion leader0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 -0 0.5 -0 0.7 -0 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -0 0.1 -0 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 0.1 -0 -1 -1 -1

28 Communications between peers/ Change

through working with peers0.2 0.3 -0 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0 0 0.1 0.1 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1

29 Trust -1 -0 -0 0.3 -0 -0 -0 -0 0 -0 0.3 -0 -0 0 0.2 0.5 -0 -0 -0 0 -1 0 -0 0.3 -0 0.4 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0 0.6 -0 0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1

30 Type 3. Optimizing planning/ Strategy of

direct approach/ Problem solving0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 -0 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 0.8 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 -1 0.1 0.3 -0 -0 0.2 0.2 0.7 0 -0 -0 0 -0 -1 -1 -1

31 Leadership 0.1 0 -0 0.6 -0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 -0 0.3 -0 0.1 0.1 -0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0 -0 -0 0 -0 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0.2 0.1 -0 0 -0 0.6 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1

32 Support/ support staff/ support team/

client0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 -0 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0 -0 0.3 1 -0 0 0.4 -0 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.5 -0 -0 0.2 0.1 -0 0.1 0 0.3 0.2 -0 -1 -1 -1

R33 Team spirit/ team environment/culture/

enabling environment/ culture0 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.1 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 -0 -0 0.3 -0 0.2 -0 -0 0 -0 0.1 0.4 -0 0.1 0 0.3 -0 0 0 0.7 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 -0 0.2 0.5 0.7 1

R34 Get sense of achievement -0 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.3 0.3 -0 -0 0.2 -0 -0 0 -0 0.1 0 0.1 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0 0 0.1 -0 0.4 -0 0.4 -0 1 1 0.3

35 Good interpersonal relationships, use

communication/people skills-0 0.1 0 -0 0.1 -1 0.5 0 0.1 0.3 0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.4 -1 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0 0.1 0.4 0.5 -0 -1 -0 -1 -1

R36 Flexible/ adaptable [org] 0.2 -0 -0 0.2 -0 0.6 -0 0.1 -0 -1 -0 0.2 0.2 -0 0.3 -0 0.1 -0 0.2 -0 0.7 0.3 0.3 -1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 -0 0.6 0.3 -0 -0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 1 1

37 Sport 0.1 -0 0.3 0.4 0.1 -0 0.5 0 0.2 -0 -0 0 0.3 0.1 -1 0.8 -0 -0 -0 0.1 -0 -0 -1 -0 -1 -0 0.1 -0 -0 0 -0 0.2 -0 0.4 -0 0.4 -1 -1 -1 -1

38 Business 0 -0 -1 0.5 -0 -0 0.4 -0 -0 0.5 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.3 -0 0.4 0.1 -0 0 0.2 -0 -0 0.4 -0 -1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.2 -0 -1 0.2 -1 -1 -1 -1

39 Above average SES of organization -1 -0 -1 0.5 -0 -0 0.6 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0.7 -1 1 -1 -0 -0 -1 -0 -1 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -1 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 0.5 1 -0 0.4 -1 -1 -1 -1

40 Politics -1 -1 -1 0.6 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 0.6 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 0.6 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.7 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1

41 Art -1 -1 -1 0.6 -1 -1 0.1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0.7 -1 0.6 -1 -1 -0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0.3 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1


Appendix 7: Observer Domain Scores

Business

The profile identified by business ‘Observers’ shows that high performing/creative

businesspeople:

1. Possess less innate talent in their field than musicians and designers

2. Have a greater understanding of their domain

3. Are less likely to strive for the ideal of beauty

4. Are more likely to learn by observation of the world around them

5. Are more self-aware

6. Require less egocentrism and more team-playing

7. Have a greater incidence of crisis in life and that this plays an important role in

their achievements.

8. Often reach their achievements out of necessity.

9. Are greater risk takers than musicians or designers

10. Possess a greater knowledge of their environment and changes in their

environment.

The organisations they work within:

1. Have a lower incidence of DP1 and a higher incidence of DP2

2. Provide greater levels of elbow room, mutual support and respect and desirable

future

3. Have a greater degree of communication between peers

In addition to this:

1. Finding the right niche/position seems more important

2. Team spirit and team culture is of greater importance

3. The ability to be flexible and adaptable is more important

Music

The profile identified by Music ‘Observers’ shows that high performing/creative musicians:

1. Have a stronger level of knowledge about how to be effective in their field

2. Have a lower degree of negative affect than businesspeople or designers

3. Experience good parenting and that this plays are more important role

4. Have a greater fear of failure and that this is helpful in their achievements


5. Have a stronger connection with the timeless shapes, forms and patterns (collective

unconscious Jung (2012).

The organisations they work within provide a higher degree of psychological similarity between

members


1. There is a greater emphasis in their career on training, conditioning and practice to

ensure automatic performance

2. They operate with less support and support staffs than businesspeople or designers.

Design

The profile identified by design ‘Observers’ shows that high performing/creative designers:

1. Have a stronger behavioural preference for Externalizing (influencing the world

around them).

2. Are more physically and mentally healthy than business people or musicians.

3. Have a greater degree of self-control

4. Have particularly strong communication skills and the ability to sell their ideas

which is essential to their success.

The organisations they work within:

1. Are more technologically advanced

2. Provide a greater ability to set goals, receive feedback and learn from that feedback

3. Provide a greater degree of non-financial reward

4. Have group dynamics which oscillate between fight/flight and a creative working

mode.

5. Adapt to the environment via optimised planning, direct strategies and problem

solving.


1. Leadership of project work and the design practice in general, plays are more

important role than is the case in business or music.

2. Successful and creative design work requires a broader diversity of personnel and

skills.


TABLE 22: OBSERVER DOMAIN ANALYSIS

Observers Summary Table-

Personal Variables

Overall Business Music Design

Opportunities afforded/

taken/luck 66.67% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00%

Above average SES 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average breadth learnt

skill in field 16.67% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average breadth learnt

skill not in field 8.33% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average expertise learnt in

field 70.83% 71.43% 100.00% 100.00%

Above average expertise learnt

not in field 4.17% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average expertise talent in

field 75.00% 42.86% 100.00% 100.00%

Above average expertise talent

not in field 20.83% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Knowledge about 37.50% 28.57% 100.00% 0.00%

Understanding 62.50% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00%

Ideal seeking 62.50% 71.43% 100.00% 100.00%

Ideal -homonomy 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Ideal -nurturance 8.33% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Ideal -humanity 16.67% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Ideal -beauty 29.17% 28.57% 100.00% 100.00%

Purposefulness 91.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Above average motivation 95.83% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Presence of other interest(s)/life

balance 37.50% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%


Behavioural preference S 58.33% 71.43% 0.00% 100.00%

Behavioural preference I 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Behavioural preference E 25.00% 28.57% 0.00% 100.00%

Abstract knowledge 12.50% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Extract knowledge 50.00% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average positive affect 87.50% 71.43% 100.00% 100.00%

Below average negative affect 16.67% 14.29% 100.00% 0.00%

Above average physical health 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Above average mental health 33.33% 42.86% 0.00% 100.00%

Additional variables 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Accurate knowledge of self/self-

aware 20.83% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%

Self control 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Egocentric 12.50% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

Not egocentric/team-player 25.00% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%

Good parenting 12.50% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Family expectations 8.33% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

Crisis/crises in life 25.00% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00%

Necessity 16.67% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%

Fear of failure 8.33% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Communication skills 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Good interpersonal skill/people

skills 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Curiosity/seeking novelty 50.00% 71.43% 0.00% 100.00%

Risk taking 37.50% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%

Pattern recognition 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


In touch with collective

unconscious 29.17% 57.14% 100.00% 0.00%

Knowledge of environment,

changing environment 54.17% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Make sacrifices 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable 45.83% 71.43% 0.00% 100.00%

Observers Summary Table-

Organisational Variables

Overall Business Music Design

Above average SES of

organization 12.50% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average technology

including communication systems 12.50% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00%

Above average skills in

organization 16.67% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

DP1 50.00% 42.86% 100.00% 100.00%

DP2 66.67% 85.71% 0.00% 0.00%

LF 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Optimal or above elbow room 41.67% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%

Optimal or above room to set

goals 16.67% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00%

Optimal or above feedback 33.33% 28.57% 0.00% 100.00%

Continuous

learning/improvement [not split

into goal setting and feedback]

33.33% 28.57% 0.00% 100.00%

Optimal or above variety 4.17% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average mutual support

and respect 41.67% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average social value 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average seeing of whole

product 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Meaningfulness [not split into

value and see whole product] 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


future/multiskilled 29.17% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average financial reward 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Above average non-financial

reward 25.00% 28.57% 0.00% 100.00%

Dependency 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Fight/flight/competition/love

competition 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Creative working mode 37.50% 28.57% 0.00% 100.00%

Asymmetrical

communications/Change through

opinion leader

75.00% 71.43% 100.00% 100.00%

Communications between

peers/Change through working

with peers

45.83% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%

Openness 8.33% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Psychological similarity 12.50% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Trust 33.33% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

Type 2. Meaningful learning 8.33% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%

Type 3. Optimizing

planning/Strategy of direct

approach/ Problem solving

41.67% 42.86% 0.00% 100.00%

Type 4. Active adaptive

planning/Strategy of indirect

approach/Puzzle solving

20.83% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00%

Additional variables 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Leadership 41.67% 42.86% 0.00% 100.00%

Diversity of personnel/skills 16.67% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00%

Use celebrities 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Finding niche/right position 25.00% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%


Taking personal

responsibility/accountability 8.33% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00%


automatic/highly unnatural

training environment

25.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Reputation 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Support/ support staff/support

team/ client 66.67% 71.43% 0.00% 100.00%

Team spirit/ team



54.17% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00%

Get sense of achievement 41.67% 71.43% 100.00% 100.00%

Good interpersonal relationships,

use communication/people skills 37.50% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00%

Flexible/adaptable 33.33% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00%

Appendix 8: Analysis by Domain

Business

TABLE 23: COMPARISON OF PERFORMER AND OBSERVER PATTERNS

(BUSINESS)

Category Performer

(n=2)

Observer


Opportunities afforded X X Same

Breadth learned skill in field X Different

Expertise learned in field X X Same

Expertise talent in field Y Different


Understanding X Y Similar

Ideal X X Same


Humanity X Different


Purpose X X Same

Motivation Level X X Same

Interests X Different

Behavioural SO X X Same

Behavioural IE X Different

Extract X Y Similar

Positive affect X X Same

SES X Different

DP1 X Different

DP2 X X Same

LF X Different

Elbow Room X X Same

Set Goals X Different

Feedback X Different

Variety X Different

Mutual Support X X Same

Social Value X Different

Whole Product X Different

Desirable Future X Different

Extrinsic Monetary X Different

Extrinsic Non-Monetary X Different

Communication-

Asymmetrical X Different

Communication- Peer-task X X Same

Optimized Planning X Different

Active Adaption X Different

Meaningful Learning X Different

Problem Solving X Different

Crisis/crises in life Y Different

Curiosity/seeking novelty X Different

Risk taking X Different

In touch with collective

unconscious Y Different

Knowledge of environment,

changing environment X Different

Adaptive, flexible, adaptable X Different


Support/support

staff/support team/client X Different

Team spirit/team



Y Different

Get sense of achievement X Different

Music

TABLE 24: COMPARISON OF PERFORMER AND OBSERVER PATTERNS (MUSIC)

Category Performer

(n=2)

Observer


Opportunities

afforded X X Same

Breadth learned skill

in field X Different


field X X Same

Expertise talent in

field X X Same

Knowledge about X X Same

Understanding X Different

Ideal X X Same


Beauty X X Same

Purpose X X Same

Motivation level Y X Same

Behavioural SO X Different


Extract X Different

Positive affect Y X Similar

Negative affect X Different

SES X Different

Technology X Different

DP1 X X Same

DP2 X Different


Elbow room X Different

Set goals X Different

Feedback X Different

Variety X Different

Mutual support X Different

Social value X Different

Whole product X Different

Desirable future X Different

Extrinsic motivation X Different

Extrinsic non-

monetary X Different

Communication X Different

Psychological

similarity X Different

Means of change X Different

Problem solving Y Different

Good parenting X Different

Fear of failure Different

In touch with

collective

unconscious

X Different

Training as

conditioning/on

automatic/highly

unnatural training

environment

X Different

Get sense of

achievement X Different

Design

TABLE 25: COMPARISON OF PERFORMER AND OBSERVER PATTERNS (DESIGN

Category Performer

(n=2)

Observer

(n=1)

Same/Similar/Different

Opportunities afforded X X Same

Breadth learned skill in X Different


field


field X X Same

Expertise learned not

in field X Different

Expertise talent in field X X Same


Understanding X Different

Ideal X X Same


Beauty X X Same

Purpose X X Same

Motivation level X X Same

Behavioural SO Y X Similar


Extract X Different

Positive affect X X Same

Negative affect X Different

Physical health X Different

Mental health X Different

SES X Different

Technology X Different

DP1 X Different

DP2 X Different

LF X Different

Elbow room X Different

Set goals X X Same

Feedback X X Same

Variety X X Same

Mutual support X X Same

Social value X Different

Whole product X Different

Desirable future X Different

Extrinsic monetary X Different

Extrinsic non-

monetary X X Same


Fight/Flight X Different

Creative working mode X Different

Communication-

Asymmetrical X Different

Communication-Peer-

task X Different

Meaningful learning X Different

Problem solving X Different

Self-control X Different

Good parenting X Different

Crisis/crises in life X Different

Fear of failure X Different

Communication skills X Different

Curiosity/seeking

novelty X Different

Adaptive, flexible,

adaptable X Different

Optimizing

planning/Strategy of

direct approach/

Problem solving

X Different

Leadership X Different

Diversity of

personnel/skills X Different

Support/support

staff/support

team/client

X Different

Get sense of

achievement X Different

Good interpersonal

relationships, use

communication/people

skills

X Different


Appendix 9: Nine perspectives on PCP

A 9.1 Overview

This appendix provides an extended review which synthesises the large, fragmented,

compartmentalised and multi-disciplinary body of literature which was excluded from the scope

of the review in Chapter 2, yet is relevant to understanding the full range of biological,

psychological, sociological and contextual influences contributing to the emergence of PCP. The

appendix is organised into ten sections. Each of the nine sections which follow the introductory

section of the review, represents a recognised theme within the literature. Theme and chapter

topic selection was based upon, (a) identification of literature which is most directly relevant to

the research aims and objectives, (b) key topics identified within each of the biological,

psychological, social and contextual perspectives on PCP, (c) a desire to adequately reflect the

breadth of the PCP literature, or (d) coverage of any additional variables referenced in the

theoretical framework in Section 3.3. Each section is also matched with a variable within the

theoretical framework outlined in Chapter 3. Furthermore, whilst each of the nine sections

represent a self-contained literature review and thereby addresses the traditional purposes of

such a review, theoretical and empirical linkages between sections are noted to provide a critical

assessment of the Peak Creative Performance (PCP) literature when viewed from the

perspective of a single integrated field of inquiry.

Section A 9.2 examines the role of ‘innate ability’ (particularly the role of intelligence,

hereditability, genetics, brain modularity, and domain specific talents). Section A 9.3 examines

the role of ‘learned expertise’ (and associated topics such as neurological capacity, pattern

recognition, physiological adaption and deliberate practice). Section A 9.4 examines the literature

relating to the role of personality in PCP (particularly the role of genetic influences, such as the

presence of the DRD2 allele, early parental death and trauma, and the distinctive and

paradoxical range of PCP personality traits such as independence, risk taking and

‘Subjectivising-Externalizing’). Section A 9.5 reviews the literature relating to purposeful and

ideal seeking behaviour (particularly goal setting, the emergence of purposes and the conditions

which are conducive to ideal seeking behaviour). Section A 9.6 is a review of the motivation

literature (and places emphasis on high level motivation, the role of affects, expertise,

compensatory effects, and the processes of addiction), Section A 9.7 reviews the literature

examining the relationship between group functioning and PCP (particularly the achievement of

PCP despite unfavourable circumstances and the OST conceptualisation of organisational

Design Principles), Section A 9.8 reviews the literature relating to one of the least well

understood factors involved in PCP; the role of context (particularly the characteristics of


creative environments, patterns of innovation and change and the role of matching PCPer skills

and abilities with opportunities), Section A 9.9 reviews the extensive body of literature

examining creative processes (and contrasts cognitive associationist theories of creative insight

with the OST conceptualisation of allocentric perception of the environment). Section A 9.10

also reviews the use of systems and confluence theories to examine PCP (and contrasts the

findings and methodologies of descriptive, explanatory, systems and bio-psycho-social studies).

A 9.2 Innate ability

A 9.2.1 Introduction

In addition to the traditional objectives of a literature review, this review aims to organise and

integrate the findings contained within nine topic areas. The review examines several key ideas

within each of the nine areas, and where appropriate, theoretical and empirical linkages between

topics are made.

The first part of the review discusses the role of ‘innate ability’. The review begins with a

definition of the concept of innate ability and then examines the intelligence literature and the

extent of its impact. This is followed by a review of the hereditability literature, genetic research

and twin studies. The literature regarding occupational performance, brain modularity,

savantism and prodigiousness is then examined. The review shows that innate ability is

necessary, yet, insufficient for the emergence of PCP. Domain specific abilities, are however,

regarded as better predictors of PCP than broader notions of innate ability such as general

intelligence.

The Macquarie Concise Dictionary (2010) defines the term ‘innate’ as, “inborn: existing, or as if

existing in one from birth…inherent in the essential character of something…arising from the

constitution of the mind, rather than acquired from experience” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary,

2010, p.637). In addition, ‘ability’ is defined as, “power or capacity to do or act in any

relation…competence in any occupation or field of action…talents; mental gifts or

endowments” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 2). According to Gagne (1993), the term

‘innate ability’ relates to aptitudes which are natural human abilities that have their origin in

genetic structures and appear spontaneously without systematic training (Gagne, 1993, p. 72).

For the purposes of this thesis, ‘innate ability’ refers to any unlearned predisposition that enables

an individual to master the requirements of a domain.


A 9.2.2 Intelligence literature

The scientific study of PCP commenced with Galton (1869). Since this time the literature has

been dominated by a voluminous number of general intelligence studies (Gagne, 1993). Three

assumptions appear to underpin this body of work. Firstly, intelligence is regarded as hereditable

(Galton, 1869; Binet & Simon, 1916; Spearman, 1927; Thurstone, 1973; Cattell, 1987), eminence

is believed to run in families, and eminent individuals are thought to be qualitatively different

from others (Galton, 1869). As a result, ‘innate ability’ (as defined in terms of intelligence) has

historically played a central role in the study of PCP (Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006).

Despite the difficulties surrounding the satisfactory definition and measurement of intelligence

(Ackoff & Emery, 1972; Guilford, 1967; Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 2007), the influence of

intelligence research has continued to the present day. The literature suggests that scholars and

general members of the public have typically assumed that high intelligence is a significant

causative factor in individual achievement (Sternberg, 2007; Dai, 2010). According to Dai (2010)

however, following the development of the first ‘intelligence tests’ (Binet, 1915), popularity of

the concept, the use of tools to measure it, and belief in its significance has outstripped the

empirical evidence.

The limited number of large scale longitudinal studies which have evaluated the effects of

general intelligence on adult achievement and wellbeing have not yet established a strong link

between these variables (Terman & Oden, 1959; Vaillant 1977; Freeman, 1979; Monks, van

Boxtel, Roelofs & Sanders, 1986; Trost, 1991; Heller, 1991; Wild, 1991; Lubinski & Benbow,

1993; Milgram & Hong, 1993). Furthermore, studies of ‘underachievement’ have also been

conducted to identify why it is that high levels of general ability (intelligence) do not consistently

produce high levels of adult achievement (Terman & Oden, 1947; Shaw & McCuen, 1960; Durr,

1964; Kornrich, 1965; Bricklin & Bricklin, 1967; Kellmer-Pringe, 1970; Torrance, 1972; Butler-

Por, 1993).

Today, there is broad consensus (Terman, 1926; Terman & Oden, 1959; Burkes, Jensen and

Terman, 1930; Albert, 1983; 1992; Eysenck 1995; Thompson, 1993; Cox, 1926; Rothenberg &

Wyshak, 2004) that general intelligence is not predictive of eminent adult achievement or genius,

however it is correlated with general wellbeing and predictive of early stage learning and

scholastic performance. Echoing this point, Ackerman and Beier (2006) argue that “IQ tests

have the highest validity for the purposes for which they were developed- namely, prediction of

academic performance in children and adolescents...but somewhat less so for predictions of

adult and occupational performance” (Ackerman & Beier, 2006, pp. 155-157).


Moreover, Eysenck (1995) discusses the relationship between general intelligence and adult

achievement and concludes that:

In this high IQ group, most if not all of whose members had sufficiently high general

intellectual ability to become geniuses, none in fact achieved this apotheosis, or even

approached it. The facts leave little doubt that high IQ is not a sufficient factor for

genius status (Eysenck, 1995, p. 61).

Furthermore, Eysenck and Berrett (1993) have found that “many gifted children fail to show

any creative achievement when they grow up...their giftedness fails to be translated into real life

contribution” (Eysenck & Berrett, 1993, p. 115).

Each of these studies have also proven incorrect, the earlier notion that, highly intelligent

individuals are qualitatively different from other individuals (Galton, 1869). Highly intelligent

individuals do appear to have, higher neural efficiency as measured by ‘p-300 evoked potentials’

(Galin & Ornstein, 1972; Eysenck & Berrett, 1993), higher EEG and alpha activity (McCarthy &

Donchin, 1981; Schafer, 1982), lower error in the central nervous system (Ertl & Schafer, 1967),

more electro chemical activity (Hendrickson & Hendrickson, 1980), different neuronal

configuration (Sternberg , 1985), less consumption of glucose within the brain (Haier & Jung,

2008), and increased frontal cortex activity (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Dacey & Lennon, 1998).

According to Steiner and Carr (2003) and Dai (2010), it may however, be more appropriate to

regard such individuals as being quantitatively (i.e. attaining a higher intelligence quotient) rather

than qualitatively different (i.e. fundamentally a different class) from the normal population.

It is generally recognised that a threshold level of intelligence (i.e. an Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

above 120) is required to produce creative work. General intelligence scores, below 120 or

greater than 180, are typically found to be detrimental to creative achievement (Getzels &

Jackson, 1962; Mackinnon, 1978; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Runco, 2006; Sternberg, 2007; Dai,

2010). Accordingly, Findlay and Lumsden (1988) argue that:

The correlation between IQ and creative ability is relatively modest, up to about IQ

120, beyond which it appears to weaken further...despite the interest in IQ studies, their

value for understanding creativity, discovery and innovation may ultimately prove quite

limited (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988, p. 36).

Further difficulties arise when utilising general intelligence as a predictor of creativity because it

is a measure which emphasises abstract scholastic learning (Sternberg, 2007) and largely ignores


an individual’s ability to perceive his or her environment in new ways (Ackoff & Emery, 1972;

De Bono, 1976; Emery, 1993).

A 9.2.3 Significance of innate ability

There appears to be a general consensus (Deaux, 1985; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Heller et al.,

1993; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Wilding & Valentine, 2006) that human beings possess innate

abilities, and furthermore, that clear differences in these innate abilities are apparent between

individuals. The role of heredity is a central and foundational concept underpinning the study of

intelligence and PCP. For instance, according to Galton (1874), “nature is all that a man brings

with himself into the world; nurture is every influence from without that affects him after his

birth” (Galton, 1874, p. 12). Galton (1883) famously claimed that “nature prevails enormously

over nurture” (Galton, 1883, p. 241), and furthermore that “character, including aptitude for

hard work, is hereditable like every other faculty” (Galton, 1874, p. 47).

It is generally agreed within the literature (Seemanova, 1971; Schull & Neel, 1972; Bashi, 1977;

Scarr, 1981; Jensen, 1983; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Plomin, 1989; Plomin & Thompson, 1993;

Eysenck, 1995; Polman, 1997; Ramachandaran, 1999; Butterworth, 2006), that intelligence,

personality traits and other abilities, are at least fifty percent hereditable (however, the degree of

hereditability varies between seventy percent and thirty percent depending on the specific

abilities and traits involved). In discussing the hereditability of intelligence, Thompson and

Plomin (1993) argue that:

There is overwhelming evidence that observed differences among individuals in various

measures of intelligence are in part attributable to genetic factors...genetic relatives

reared apart correlate about 0.2, environmental relatives correlate about 0.2, and genetic

plus environmental relatives correlate about 0.4. These adoption results are consistent

with a hereditability estimate of about 0.4, about half that for height...the twin method

converges on this conclusion...it should be noted that the correlation of 0.6 for fraternal

twins exceeds the correlation of 0.46 for non-twin siblings which suggests that shared

environmental influences contribute more to the resemblance for twin than non-twin

siblings...for identical twins reared apart the average correlation is 0.72 (Thompson &

Plomin, 1993, p. 105).

Scarr (1981) offers a similarly definitive conclusion regarding these findings:


There is incontrovertible evidence concerning the hereditability of the above aptitude

categories...Not only my work but research by many others also supports the modest

conclusion that we are different from one another on both genetic and environmental

bases- not only in intellectual ability but in personality, cognitive style, gestural and

postural communication, linguistic style and probably all other measurable

characteristics (Scarr, 1981, p. 526).

Recently, Dickens and Flynn (2001) have argued that the hereditability estimates outlined above

may need to be varied to cater for environmental influences; the impact of environmental

influences on ability is also regarded as having a strong genetic component. Echoing this view,

Plomin (1989) believes that the pervasiveness of hereditable influence is often overlooked in the

contemporary literature. According to Plomin (1989):

The first message of behavioural genetic research is that genetic influence on individual

differences in behavioural development is usually significant and often substantial.

Genetic influence is so ubiquitous and pervasive in behaviour that a shift in emphasis is

warranted. Ask not, what is hereditable; ask what is not hereditable (Plomin, 1989, p.

108).

The role of heredity and genetic influence may, however, be more complex than Galton (1874)

first imagined. According to Feldman and Goldsmith (1991), hereditable factors and genetic

predispositions which underpin abilities and aptitudes establish a ‘range of reaction’, rather than

determining abilities. Such studies refer to the ‘probabilistic influence’ of a genetic

predisposition on a population (i.e. not for an individual) (Thompson & Plomin, 1993). These

genetic parameters merely establish constraints on the abilities which may develop. According to

Dai (2010), “except for radical environmentalists, most people would acknowledge some degree

of constraint imposed by nature, regarding how fast and far one can go in a specific line of

talent development” (Dai 2010, p. 37). Inherited genes must then be mediated by

psychophysiological or hormonal means in order to result in practical abilities (Eysenck &

Barrett, 1993). Following their development, abilities therefore establish constraints upon the

actions of individuals, which in turn mediate development and achievement (Carpenter, Just and

Shell, 1990; Sternberg, 1997; Renzulli, 1999; Stankov, 2003; Hunt, 2011). Accordingly Ericsson

et al. (2006) argue that “attainable performance is constrained by ones’ basic endowments such

as abilities, mental capacities and innate talents” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 683).


In addition, it has been found that the influence of hereditability is more pronounced at the

extreme high end of the ability range and environmental influence more pronounced at the

extreme low end of the ability range (Dai, 2010). This body of evidence has produced mixed

results as to whether the etiology of high achievement is the same and continuous with the

etiology of the normal range (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Thompson & Plomin, 1993).

Further complexities have also arisen from the studies of Thompson and Plomin (1993) and

Plomin and Spinath (2004) which show the influence of hereditable abilities to be more

pronounced with age and environmental influences to be more significant during childhood and

adolescence Despite this, innate abilities, or ‘domain flairs’, are clearly apparent at 1-2 years of

age and certainly by 4-6 years of age (Albert, 1983; Miller, 1989; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991;

Eysenck & Barrett, 1993).

One important feature of the literature, is the lack of evidence to support the familial clustering

of ability. According to Albert (1992) and Eysenck (1995), offspring of both highly intelligent

and dull parents regress to the mean and variations in intelligence appear in the offspring of

average parents. Illustrating this point Eysenck (1995) argues that:

There is no record in history of a genius begetting another genius: all history records is

regression to the mean....this regression is of course also aided by the fact that heredity

implicates both parents...and in spite of assortative mating , the wives of geniuses

seldom if ever attained similar heights of intellect, creativity, motivation etc. On these

grounds we would expect the clustering Galton discovered to be due to environmental

rather than purely genetic causes (Eysenck, 1995, p. 15).

Exceptions have, however, been found in relation to musical ability (Mjoen, 1925), drawing

ability (Haecker & Ziehen, 1931; Krause, 1932), ability in sport (Weiss, 1977), and mathematical

ability (Wiess, 1982). There is mixed evidence regarding the hereditability of creative abilities

(Nichols, 1964; Barron, 1972; Eysenck, 1995; Amabile, 1996; Piirto, 1998; Gardner, 2000;

Runco, 2006) and the hereditability of other abilities which are strongly correlated with creativity

(West, 1991; Jamison, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Eysenck, 1995; Runco, 2007; Vellutino,

Fletcher, Snowling & Scanlon, 2004).

Notwithstanding the important role that genetics and heredity play in the establishment of

innate abilities and the development of the total range of skills that an individual possesses,

Findlay and Lumsden (1988) make the important point that in the absence of sufficient

sociocultural stimulation, a substantial portion of innate ability will gradually degrade. As


discussed in the next section, it appears that extensive deliberate practice may be required to

maintain and develop such innate abilities (Ericsson et al., 2006).

A 9.2.4 Domain specific ability

There is an emerging consensus that domain specific abilities are more strongly correlated with

the attainment of PCP than general intelligence (although the debate about these two

perspectives continues) (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Morelock & Feldman, 1993; Ericsson et

al., 2006, Dai, 2010). Such findings have led PCP researchers to recast their beliefs about what is

known about the hereditable, genetic and neurological foundations of talent and ability

(Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991). According to Ericsson et al. (2006), “there was no evidence for

Galton’s hypothesis of general superiority for experts because the demonstrated superiority of

experts was found to be limited to specific aspects related to a particular domain” (Ericsson,

2006, p. 10). Similarly Morelock and Feldman (1993) have stated that, “these findings, like those

of Resevesz and Baumgarten suggested that giftedness is domain specific, rather than solely the

expression of a generalised and pervasive intellectual endowment” (Morelock & Feldman, 1993,

p. 162). According to Gagne (1993), domain specific abilities are better predictors of

occupational performance, and when exercise and practice are controlled for, domain specific

abilities explain a major proportion of individual differences in talented performances. There

does also appear to be a general consensus within the literature that different occupational types

require different types of abilities (Mackinnon, 1978; Ceci, 1990; Carroll, 1993; Winner &

Martino, 1993; Simonton 1994; Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996; Ackerman & Beier, 2006;

Gallagher 2000; Subotnik, 2003; Park, Lubinski & Benbow, 2007).

These findings are underpinned by an emerging, but substantial, body of evidence indicating

that the human brain possesses ‘massive modularity’ (Gazzaniga, 2000; Cosmides & Tooby,

2003). That is, the brain appears to be organised such that there is a redundancy of functions

(Dax, 1836; Hebb, 1949; Luria, 1973; Fodor, 1983; Rosenfield, 1988; Bolles, 1988; Emery,

1999a; Gazzaniga, 2000; Edelman, 1992; Snow, 1992 Dai, 2010; Cosmides & Tooby, 2003). The

brain modularity hypothesis is supported by a range of findings including evidence that multiple

distinct forms of intelligence are only weakly correlated with global measures of intelligence

(Thurstone, 1924; Guilford, 1967; Marland, 1972; Renzulli, 1978; Sternberg, 1985; Gagne, 1993;

Eysenck, 1995; Lohman, 1996; Piirto, 1998; Gardner, 2000), findings that domain specific

abilities are underpinned by distinct mental-neuroanatomical structures (Findlay & Lumsden,

1988; Eysenck & Berrett, 1993; Gardner, 2000; O’Boyle, 2008; Sternberg, 2007), and evidence

that such abilities result from prolonged periods of cortical development and thickening

(Dmitrieva, Gelman, Zaitseva & Orlov, 2006; Shaw et al., 2006) or are associated with prenatal


brain injury and compensatory activity (Frith, 1980; Gershwind & Galaburda, 1987; Phillips,

1987; Winner, Casey, De Sylva & Hayes, 1991; Winner & Martino, 1993; Winner, 1997).

According to Dai (2010) however, it is more appropriate to adopt a more moderate

interpretation of the modularity view. In particular, Dai (2010) has argued that, “empirically,

neither a strong modular view of distinct, independent abilities nor a strong domain general

view of intelligence as a unitary capacity is supported” (Dai, 2010, p. 81). Dai’s (2010) argument

aligns with the views of Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Dacey and Lennon (1998) and Runco

(2006) that the brain is both differentiated and integrated, and that these characteristics establish

the basis for domain general and domain specific abilities. Regarding this point Dai (2010) states

that:

The findings are mixed and do not support the notion of an unqualified, context free

general cognitive advantage...it is likely that both domain general and domain specific

resources are needed...to integrate many functional units of varied functional generality

to form a whole (Dai, 2010, p. 94).

Rather than being linked directly to specific genes however, Lykken (1982), Findlay and

Lumsden (1988), and Thompson and Plomin (1993) argue that domain general and domain

specific abilities may instead be underpinned by a complex system of genes which develop in

accordance with the process emergenesis.

Whilst domain specific abilities are more strongly correlated with PCP domain general abilities,

there appears to be a general consensus (Brunswick, 1952; Willingham, 1974; Chi, Glaser &

Rees, 1982; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Cardon, Fulker, De Fries & Plomin, 1992; Ackerman,

1992; Lubinski & Benbow,1992; Warr, 1994; Piirto, 1998; Dai, 2010) that domain specific

abilities most significantly contribute to (and are predictive of) PCP when there is a ‘match’, ‘fit’

or ‘symmetry’ between abilities and the domain. Conceptually, the notion of symmetry appears

to be analogous with Sternberg’s (2007) ‘successful intelligence’ and Ackoff and Emery’s (1972)

functional definition of intelligence. Emphasising the significance of these findings, Ackerman

and Beier (2006) argue that:

Across both motor-dependent tasks and knowledge or cognitive tasks, the key

ingredient in maximising the correlations between predictors and criteria is the concept

of Brunswick Symmetry...that is, the content and especially the breadth of both

predictor and criterion need to match” (Ackerman and Beier, 2006, p. 157).


The most compelling evidence linking brain modularity, domain specific abilities and symmetry

between innate abilities and domain is found in the research on childhood prodigies and the

studies of savants (Revesz, 1925; Baumgarten, 1930; Weiner, 1953; Montour, 1977; Selfe, 1977;

Feldman, 1980; Shutter-Dyson & Gabriel, 1981; Waitzkin, 1984; Wallace, 1986; Treffert, 1989;

Miller, 1989; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Winner & Martino, 1993; Morelock & Feldman,

1993; Eysenck & Barrett, 1993; Snyder, 2004; Butterworth, 2006; Snyder, 2009). According to

Morelock and Feldman (1993) “the savant (or prodigy) provides us with an opportunity to

observe domain specificity in its purest form” (Morelock & Feldman, 1993, p. 179).

Morelock and Feldman (1993) define ‘prodigy’ in the following way:

A prodigy is a child who before the age of 10, performs at the level of an adult

professional in some cognitively demanding field...The precise definition of

prodigiousness has only been in existence since 1979” (Morelock & Feldman, 1993, p.

164).

In contrast, the ‘savant’ is defined with reference to its historical usage:

The term idiot savant was originally coined by Dr J Langdon Down of London (Down,

1887) to refer to severely mentally handicapped persons displaying advanced levels of

learning in narrowly circumscribed areas (Winner & Martino, 1993, p. 253).

Since then, Treffert (1989) has provided a more precise definition:

Savant syndrome is an exceedingly rare condition in which persons with serious mental

handicaps, either from developmental disability (mental retardation) or major mental

illness (early infantile autism or schizophrenia) have spectacular islands of ability or

brilliance which stand in stark, markedly incongruous contrast to the

handicap...(talented savants or Savant I)...In others, with a much rarer form of the

condition, the ability or brilliance is not only spectacular in contrast to the handicap,

but would be spectacular even if viewed in a normal person (prodigious savants or

Savant II) (Treffert, 1989, p. 164).

The savant and the prodigy are thought to be born with an intuitive, tacit and immediate

understanding of the structure and rules of a specific domain (Miller, 1989). According to

Morelock and Feldman (1993):


Perhaps the purest essence of domain specific talent, is the ability to holistically intuit

the syntactic core of rules and regularities lying at the heart of a domain of knowledge,

the pattern of relationships...In the prodigy we see this same domain specific talent. But

through the facilitation of general intellectual capacities, it becomes enlarged,

embellished, imbued with meaning...this is what giftedness is all about (Morelock &

Feldman, 1993, pp. 176-179).

Such a rapid rate of learning appears to be evident in all populations where there is a sublime

match between ability and domain (Scott & Moffatt, 1977; Jackson & Butterfield, 1986;

Ackerman, 1988; Kanevsky, 1990; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Morelock, 1996; Ericsson, et

al., 2006; Kanevsky & Geake, 2004; Borkowski & Peck, 1986; Gagne, 2005; Hunt 2006; Dai,

2010). It is for this reason that Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) have described the prodigy as a

‘single purpose being’. Sawyer (2006) has argued that the mind of the prodigy; “is not built for

the abstract, the conceptual, rather the concrete, the particular, the single, is all” (Sawyer, 2006,

p. 88). According to Snyder (2009) however, it is savant studies which have most clearly

established the domain specific nature of abilities. Two features of the savant’s skills provide

support for the conclusion that innate abilities exist and that innate ability in one area is

independent from ability in another. According to Resevesz (1925), Baumgarten (1930) and

Feldman (1980), the skills of the savant are both highly specific and extraordinary and often

combined with severe impairment (i.e. ‘pathologies of superiority’). Echoing this point, Winner

and Martino (1993) have argued that “the savant syndrome...provides the strongest evidence for

the independence of....ability from other cognitive and even perceptual skills” (Winner &

Martino, 1993, p. 274).

Strong evidence for domain specific abilities of prodigies and savants has been found in chess,

music, numerosity/mathematics, memory, drawing, writing and mechanical tasks (Feldman &

Goldsmith, 1991; Morelock & Feldman, 1993; Snyder, 2004). There is less evidence for the

existence of domain specific abilities in other domains such as sport (Hodges, Starkes &

MacMahon, 2006; Rosenbaum, Augustyn, Cohen & Jax, 2006). In addition to this, Feldman and

Goldsmith (1991) have suggested that ‘omnibus prodigies’ may also exist, indicating that a

spectrum of innate ability may be possible, ranging from the domain specific to domain general.

In contrast, there is mixed evidence regarding the role of domain specific abilities in creativity.

Most of the contemporary literature correlates creativity with dual hemispheric and complex-

distributed brain function rather than modularity and domain specific abilities (Squire, 1982;

Horton & Mills, 1984; Reber, 1985; Findlay & Lumsden 1988; Hoppe & Kyle, 1990; Restak,


1991; TenHouten, 1994; Miller, Ponton, Benson, Cummings & Mena, 1996; Katz, 1997; Dacey

& Lennon, 1998; Dietrich, 2004; Sawyer, 2006).

A 9.2.5 Innate ability: necessary but insufficient

To what extent, does ‘innate ability’, whether domain general or domain specific, explain PCP?

Summarising the relative influence of a number of factors contributing to PCP, Eysenck (1995)

has argued that:

Intelligence which may be defined as an innate, general cognitive ability, is a necessary

but not sufficient factor in the genesis of genius. Special abilities....persistence,

personality and other factors are required and probably interact synergistically

(multiplicatively) with intelligence, thus producing the typical J shaped curved

distribution of eminence defined in terms of achievement....The existence of large

numbers of very high IQ people who are very far from being geniuses demonstrates the

fact that factors other than IQ play a large part in producing the geniuses (Eysenck,

1995, p. 74).

Eysenck’s (1995) view that innate ability is a necessary but insufficient precondition for the

achievement of PCP is consistent with the views of Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Albert (1983,

1992), Feldman et al. (1994), Dacey and Lennon (1998), Runco (2006), and Sawyer (2006). Some

of the clearest evidence supporting this view, however, comes from studies examining the

transition from childhood prodigy to adult achievement. According to Whitehead (1929),

Bamberger (1982), Bloom (1985), and Winner and Martino (1993) there has never been a

prodigy (or any other child) who has creatively transformed a domain. In Eysenck’s (1995) view,

it is clear that prodigiousness is qualitatively distinct from mature artistry, particularly eminent

contributions. Generally, children are regarded as lacking the post conventional development,

emotional expressiveness, depth and novelty which goes beyond technical mastery. For instance,

Winner and Martino (1993) argue that:

Emotional depth can only come with experience, and thus cannot be found in even the

most prodigious child genius...children who go on to become adult musicians typically

begin to connect to the music in an emotional way...a shift from precocity to more

mature artistry...many flounder, unable to make the bridge between sheer mechanical


skills and personal expressive style...It is at this age that (Banberger 1982) notes that a

midlife crisis occurs (Winner & Martino, 1993, p. 276).

It is for each of the reasons listed above that Dacey and Lennon (1998) and Capra (1992) have

argued that it is fruitless to continue our historical penchant for a ‘biological explanation’ of

PCP. According to Feldman et al. (1994) “the biologist or the geneticist who claims to have

discovered the secret of creativity is as misguided as the psychologist or anthropologist who

utters a similar boast” (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 53). Furthermore Sawyer (2006) has concluded

that “creativity is not a heritable trait and there is no single gene for creativity. We can’t look to

genetics for the explanation for creativity” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 94).

A 9.2.6 Summary

The first part of this review has examined the literature dealing with intelligence, domain specific

skills, hereditability, brain modularity, savantism and prodigiousness. The literature suggests that

a biological basis for domain specific abilities may exist and that they may be necessary for the

attainment of PCP. Despite this, the literature also shows that on their own, both domain

general and domain specific abilities offer an inadequate explanation for PCP.

The next part of the review discusses the contribution that deliberate practice and learned

expertise make toward PCP.

A 9.3 Learned Expertise


The third part of this review discusses the contribution that ‘learned expertise’ makes toward the

attainment of PCP. A large body of literature exists in relation to learning theory, education and

developmental psychology. The review in this section is confined to three specific topics

because of their direct relevance to expertise and expert performance (Ericsson et al., 2006). The

review begins with a discussion of the neurological capacity of human beings to develop

expertise. The literature relating to ‘neuroplasticity’ (Ramachandran, 1999), is central to the

research on expertise because, without their being a capacity for the brain to continually

develop, expertise can not be learnt. The role of deliberate practice and the associated topics of

neurological and physiological adaption, and the development of pattern recognition capabilities

are then examined. The discussion then concludes with a review of the literature examining the

amount and type of expertise which is most strongly correlated with PCP. Three subtopics are


discussed in this concluding subsection: (a) the domain specificity of expertise, (b) the amount

and type of deliberate practice required and (c) the interaction between innate abilities and

learned expertise.

A 9.3.2 Neurological capacity

The concept of ‘expert performance’ or ‘expertise’ was first formally established by the studies

of Bryan and Harter (1899), Fitts and Posner (1967), and Simon and Chase (1973). Today

‘expert performers’ are defined as “individuals who exhibit reproducibly superior performance

on representative, authentic tasks in their field” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p.687). This contemporary

definition of expertise also recognises that “the highest levels of performance in a given domain

are not stable but sometimes continue to increase over historical time as a function of

progressively higher and more effective levels of training and practice” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p.

690).

Learned expertise is relevant to PCP for at least four reasons. Firstly, as discussed above, innate

ability is necessary but insufficient for the attainment of PCP. Secondly, psychological and

intelligence testing has so far been unsuccessful in producing reliable predictive tests for PCP

(and continues to suffer from a range of other limitations) (Thomson 1916; Kelley, 1926; Geary,

1995a, 1995b; Plucker, Callahan & Tomchin, 1996; Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996; Lohman,

2005, 2006; Lubinski, 2004; Sternberg, 2007; Dai, 2010). Thirdly, there is mixed evidence to

support the validity of traditional theories of lifespan development and skill acquisition

(indicating fixed or asymptotic potential and the inevitable degeneration of abilities) (Galton,

1869; Fitts & Posner, 1967; Denney, 1982; Anderson, 1982; Ericsson et al., 2006). Fourthly, as

mentioned above, there is an emerging body of literature examining neural plasticity and the

ability for human beings to (within certain limits) continue to develop abilities throughout their

lifespan (Kolb & Whishaw, 1998; Ulijaszek, Johnston & Preece, 1998; Ramachandran, 1999;

Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; Molenaar, 2004; Dai, 2010). Finally, the growing body of ‘deliberate

practice’ and ‘expertise’ literature indicates a strong relationship between deliberate practice, the

development of expertise and world class achievement (Ericsson et al., 2006).

Ericsson, et al. (2006) define deliberate practice (and distinguish it from typical forms of

practice, learning and skills development) in the following way:

Deliberate practice presents performers with tasks that are initially outside of their

current realm of reliable performance, yet can be mastered within hours of practice by

concentrating on critical aspects and by gradually refining performance through

repetitions after feedback. There are three ways in which deliberate practice assists


experts to either bypass, or overcome the physiological constraints referred to above;

pattern recognition, physiological adaption and perceptual attunement (Ericsson et al.,

1998, p. 413).

There is general consensus that all human beings (including experts) share the same biological,

physiological and cognitive constraints (such as memory constraints) in relation to the structure

and acquisition of expertise (Brown, 1991; Feltovich, Pietula & Ericsson, 2006; Schipp, 2004;

Baddeley, 2000; Cowan, Chen & Router, 2004). Deliberate practice, however, allows experts to

overcome memory and other constraints by accumulating patterns, chunking these patterns into

larger and more complex memory chunks and by storing these chunks in long term memory

(Simon & Chase, 1973; Charness, 1976; De Bono, 1976; Chi, 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006;

Feltovich Prietula & Ericsson, 2006). According to Simon and Gilmartin (1973) and Gobet and

Simon (1998), experts have approximately 50,000 chunks available to store information,

compared with the 1000 chunks which is typical for general professionals. In addition to greater

domain related recall and memory, chunking allows experts to generate better and more correct

responses in less time than novices, achieve a greater level of control over their performances,

derive inferences from smaller amounts of material, perceive deeper and more sophisticated

patterns and structures than novices, engage in more effective problem solving, maintain greater

focus on strategic issues, and ultimately develop more complete and integrated schemas than

novices and professionals (deGroot, 1965; Simon & Chase, 1973; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson

& Boyes-Braem, 1976; Simon & Simon, 1978; Flavell, 1979; Voss, Chielsi, Spilich & Vesonder,

1979; Larkin, McDermott, Simon & Simon, 1980; Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981; Voss, Greene,

Post & Penner, 1983; Lesgold, 1988; Glaser & Chi, 1988; Tanaka & Taylor, 1991; Johnson &

Eilers, 1998; Chi, 2006; Ericsson et al. 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Feltovich, Prietula &

Ericsson, 2006). Evidence supporting many of these findings has been replicated across several

domains (Egan & Schwartz, 1979; Akin, 1980; McKeithen, Reitman, Reuter & Hirtle, 1981; Chi,

1981; Feltovich, Johnson, Moller & Swanson, 1984; Berliner, 1994; Klein, 1998; Mayfield et al.,

1999; Hoffman, Trafton & Roebber, 2005; Shafto & Corley, 2003).

The influence of deliberate practice appears to be particularly significant when an individual

connects with a domain during early childhood. In such cases, individuals appear to

physiologically ‘adapt’ to the domain. (Polanyi, 1962; Benner, 1984; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1985;

Sundberg, 1987; Wagner, 1988; Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rockstoh & Taub, 1995; Schlaug,

2001; Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; Bengtsson, Nagy, Skare, Forsman, Forssberg, & Ullén, 2005;

Schlaug, Norton, Overy & Winner, 2005; Bangert & Schlaug, 2006; Feltovich, Peitula &

Ericsson, 2006; Hill & Scheider, 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006). Physiological adaption

suggests that there are structural and functional changes in the brain (Ericsson, 1998; Jansma,


Ramsey, Slagter & Kahn, 2001; Dai 2010), and according to Brentro, Martin, Mitchell &

Hermann (2009) there is ‘deep brain learning’. Other researchers have referred to this

phenomenon as the ‘automatization’ of expert skills (Flavell, 1979; Perfetti & Lesgold, 1979;

Lesgold & Resnick, 1982; Schneider, 1985; Glaser & Chi, 1988; Logan, 1992; Alexander, 2003;

Schneider & Chein, 2003; Feltovich, Peitula & Ericsson, 2006). Examples of physiological

adaption which have been documented in the literature include, physiological adaption in the

forearm rotation of musicians (Wagner, 1988), changes in lung capacity of singers and trumpet

players (Sundberg, 1987; Fritz, Eljilali & Shamma, 2007), and enlarged cortical areas associated

with string instruments (Elbert, Pantev, Weinbruch, Rockstroh & Taub, 1995).

According to Ericsson et al. (2006), physiological adaption is induced by straining “the targeted

physiological system…without causing overuse and injury” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 696).

Reinforcing this proposition, Ericsson et al. (2006) also argue that:

When the human body is put under exceptional strain, a range of dormant genes in the

DNA are expressed and extraordinary physiological processes are activated. Over time

the cells of the body, including the brain will reorganise in response to the induced

metabolic demands of the activity...these adaptions will eventually allow the individual

to execute the given level of activity without greatly straining the physiological systems

(Ericsson, et al., 2006, p. 694).

The two criteria that distinguish deliberate practice from general experience, routine

performance or playful engagement are: (a) the requirement for concentration and (b) the

effortful nature of deliberate practice. Typically, individuals attain only an acceptable level of

proficiency in a skill and “they maintain this pedestrian level for the rest of their careers”

(Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 683). Furthermore, most individuals reach and maintain this acceptable

level of performance while minimizing effortful skill acquisition (following approximately 50

hours of deliberate practice) (Ericsson et al., 2006; Dai, 2010). According to Gruson (1988),

Lehman and Gruber (2006) and Sosniak (2006), owing to the intense concentration and

continuous stretching of skills, deliberate practice inherently lacks enjoyment and can only be

tolerated for short periods. Furthermore, Gruson (1988), and Lehman and Gruber (2006) make

the point that whilst individuals may enjoy their own performance improvement they often

dislike the actual practice activity. Accordingly, Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that:

There appear to be limits on the daily duration of deliberate practice, and this limit

seems to generalise across domains of expertise. Expert performers...engage in practice

without rest for only around an hour...the factor that limits their deliberate practice is


primarily an inability to sustain the level of concentration...the amount of practice never

consistently exceeds five hours per day...unless the daily levels are restricted

...individuals often encounter overtraining injuries and eventually incapacitating burnout

(Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 699).

One explanation for the difficulty in attaining and maintaining PCP may therefore be the sheer

volume of effortful practice which is required. For instance, according to Bedard and Chi

(1993), Krampe and Ericsson (1996) and Ericsson et al. (2006), failure to maintain such a

disciplined practice regime results in reductions in performance. Moreover, additional ‘common’

kinds of experience and observation (even extensive experience), do not appear to produce

increases in levels of expertise. Additional common experience appears to merely strengthen

existing cognitive mechanisms (Anderson, 1982; Rosson, 1985; Doane, Pellegrino & Klatzky,

1990; Camerer & Johnston, 1991; Reif & Allen, 1992; Dawes, 1994; Williams & Davids, 1995;

Gawel, 1997; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Sosniak, 2006). According to Feltovich, Peitula and

Ericsson (2006, p. 60), there is also evidence that “in…many domains where performance

decreases as a function of the number of years”.

A 9.3.3 Substantial deliberate practice

One of the most repeated findings in the literature is that, long term engagement with a domain

(approximately ten years) is required for exceptional accomplishment (Bryan & Harter, 1899;

Hayes, 1981; Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson & Lehman,

1996). There is also a general consensus within the literature that, long term engagement with a

domain is also required for ‘creative achievement’ (Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Gardner, 1993;

Csikzentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006). Furthermore, similar findings emerge for

even the most talented individuals (Raskin, 1936; Lehman, 1953; Simon & Chase, 1973;

Ericsson, 1996; Feltovich, Prietula & Ericsson, 2006; Sosniak, 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006).

Summarising the findings from this body of literature, Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that:

There are findings that appear again and again in these studies, and not infrequently in

studies using other methods of investigation. The most obvious of the common

findings relate to time. Multiple studies report specific, continued, long term experience

with a field before a person realizes exceptional accomplishment” (Ericsson et al., 2006,

p. 197).


Similarly, Sosniak (2006) has “confirmed what many researchers had suspected, and some had

demonstrated, developing exceptional abilities takes a lot of time” (Sosniak, 2006, p. 289).

A separate but equally important theme in the literature is the suggestion that expert

performance is most likely to occur when sustained engagement with a domain is combined

with substantial amounts of deliberate practice. It has been argued that, across a wide range of

domains, the attainment of a world class level of expert performance requires approximately ten

thousand hours of deliberate practice (Butterworth, 2006; Sonnentag, Niessen & Volmer, 2006;

Krampe & Charness, 2006; Kellong, 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Hodges, Starkes &

MacMahon, 2006; Gobet & Charness, 2006; Wilding & Valentine, 2006). Slight variations in

results have, however, been found between domains (Bryan & Harter, 1899; Sloboda, Davidson,

Howe & Moore, 1996; Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson et al., 2006; Hunt, 2006). Illustrating these

findings, Ericsson et al. (2006) state that:

Even among…elite groups we were able to find that the most accomplished musicians

had spent more time in activities classified as ‘deliberate practice’ during their

development...the best musicians had spent over 10,000 hours practicing, which

averages out at 2500 and 5000 hours more than two less accomplished groups of

musicians at the same academy respectively...in comparison to amateur pianists of the

same age...the professionals had practiced 8,000 more hours” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p.

691).

Expert performers appear, however, to follow a specific pattern of development and it is this

pattern of development which seems to account for the amount of deliberate practice and

lengthy domain engagement. Firstly, there is serendipitous or playful introduction to the domain

at a young age (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Runco, 2006; Lehman, 2006). This is followed by a

show of promise, enjoyment and a rage to master the domain (Winner, 1996; Sosniak 2006).

The individual then engages in deliberate practice with the support of a master teacher

(Ericsson, et al., 2006). The interaction between positive affects and skills enhancements appear

then, to sustain deliberate practice (Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Dai, 2010) until a lasting

contribution to the domain is made (Bloom, 1985). Similar findings have been documented by

Simonton (1991), Hargreaves, Cork and Setton (1991), Colley, Banton and Down (1992),

Sosniak (2006), and Ericsson et al., (2006). According to Lehman and Gruber (2006):

Elite performers are typically introduced to their future realm of excellence in a playful

manner at a young age. As soon as they enjoy the activity and show promise compared


to peers in the neighbourhood, their parents help them seek out a teacher and initiate

regular practice (Lehman & Gruber, 2006, p. 462).

Introduction to a domain at a young age (the ‘early start’) seems to provide the necessary time

for both neurological adaptation and social recognition. There appears to be general agreement

within the literature that deliberate practice must commence during childhood in order to

produce world class levels of expertise (Simonton, 1991; Ericsson et al., 2006; Colley, Banton &

Down, 1992; Hargreaves, Cork & Setton, 1991). According to Sosniak (2006), “a young start

might be particularly beneficial in order to catch developing bodies and minds at the most

malleable times” (Sosniak, 2006, p. 298). In addition, the literature also suggests that absolute

levels of expertise and achievement (i.e. absolute levels of attainment among world class experts)

are directly proportional to the amount of deliberate practice engaged in (Ericsson & Charness,

1993; Charness, Krampe & Mayr, 1996; Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996; Sloboda,

Davidson, Howe & Moore, 1996; Helsen, Starkes & Hodges, 1998; Sonnentag & Kleine, 2000;

Amabile, 2001; Grape, Sandgren, Hansson, Ericsson & Theorell, 2003; McKinney & Davis,

2004; Ward, Hodges, Williams & Starkes, 2004; Duffy, Baluch & Ericsson, 2004; Plant,

Ericsson, Hill & Asberg, 2005; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Kellogg, 2006; Hodges, Starkes &

MacMahon, 2006; Wilding & Valentine, 2006; Butterworth, 2006).

A 9.3.4 Domain specific expertise

An extended period of deliberate practice appears to have two effects: (a) the development of

innate abilities into domain specific expertise, (b) attunement of the perceptual system to the

domain. The combined effect is the development of honed domain specific skills which are

predictive of expert performance (Carraher et al., 1985; Ceci & Liker, 1986; Ericsson & Lehman,

1996; Barab & Plucker, 2002; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Ericsson et al., 2006).

According to Tomkins (1962) and Dai (2010), individuals who develop expertise effectively

canalize their development to a point where “profound differences exist between those who

have spent many years perfecting their trades and those who have only managed to develop the

skills that allow them to function effectively in daily situations” (Dai, 2010, p. 121). Such

canalized skills are not only highly specific (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Dai, 2010), they may also

differ in their reliance on innate ability, learned expertise, general abilities and other factors

(Hunt, 2006). Often several tiers of abilities are involved ranging from the general and innate, to

the highly specific and learned. According to Dai (2010), at the highest levels of expertise, such

skills are best characterised as being highly specialised, deeply rooted and characteristic

adaptions.


Expert performance in one domain very rarely translates to another domain (Ericsson &

Lehman, 1996). For instance, Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that:

The superior performance of experts is often very domain specific, and transfer outside

their narrow area of expertise is surprisingly limited...systematic differences between

experts and less proficient individuals nearly always reflect attributes acquired by the

experts during their lengthy training” (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 10).

Similarly, according to Lehman & Gruber (2006), “it is clear that people hardly ever reach an

elite level in more than a single domain of activity...this indicates that the changes are highly

specific” (Lehman and Gruber, 2006, p. 465). Furthermore, this non-transferability of expertise

hypothesis appears to be consistent with the neurological evidence cited above in relation to

physiological adaption (Newell & Simon, 1972; Watson & Johnson-Laird, 1972; Lewandowsky,

Dunn, Kirsner & Randell, 1977; Rumelhart, 1979; Eisenstadt & Kareev, 1979; Pellegrino &

Glaser, 1982; Voss, Greene, Post & Penner, 1983; Glaser & Chi, 1988; Vincente, 1992; Hecht &

Proffitt, 1995; Gobet & Simon, 1996; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996; Hambrick & Engle, 2002;

Feltovich et al., 2006; Lehman & Gruber, 2006; Norman, Eva, Brooks & Hamastra, 2006;

Hodges, Starkes & MacMahon, 2006; Chi, 2006).

The literature above, that discusses the domain specificity and non-transferability of expertise, is

particularly relevant to the mixed relationship which exists between expertise and creativity.

Expertise has been found to reduce creativity (i.e. via cognitive limitations, automaticity, over

socialisation, cognitive inflexibility, dogmatism, taken for granted assumptions) (Kuhn, 1970;

DeBono, 1976; Chi, 1978; Voss, Vesonder & Spilich, 1980; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986;

Christensen, Heckerling, Mackesy, Berstein & Elstein,1991; Sternberg & Frensch, 1992; Barker,

1993; Argyris & Schon, 1996; Schein, 1996; Sternberg, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Wiley,

1998; Simonton, 1999; Walther, Fiedler & Nickel, 2003; Ericsson et al., 2006; Runco, 2006; Dai,

2010). Expertise has been found to enhance creativity (via socialisation, understanding of

domain boundaries and problems, automaticity and the freeing up of cognitive capacity) (Hayes,

1981; Amabile, 1983; Ericsson, 1999; Weisberg, 2006; Sawyer, 2006; Bransford, Brown &

Cocking, 1999; Dai 2010). Conversely, the absence of expertise has been found to both increase

creativity (via fresh perspectives), (Hudson, 2001; Weisberg, 2006; Brown, 2009), and to reduce

creativity (via simplicity and dogmatism) (Runco, 2006). Cross domain expertise has also been

found to increase creativity (via combinatory play, re-combination of ideas, networks of

enterprise, geometry of the semantic network, organisation of knowledge, asynchrony,

analogical thinking, marginality and insight) (Koestler, 1964; Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Findlay &


Lumsden, 1988; Simonton, 1988, 1996; Gardner, 1993; Utterback, 1996; Hargadon, 2003;

Runco, 2006; Weisberg, 2006; De Bono, 2009; Root-Bernstein, 2009; Dai, 2010). Gardner

(1993) has also made the distinction between ‘master’ and ‘maker’, and Dai (2010) has found

evidence to suggest that expertise may be regarded as an entirely different phenomenon to

creativity.

Despite the mixed evidence, Ericsson et al. (2006) argue that there is a strong relationship

between domain specific expertise and creative achievement. According to Ericsson et al. (2006)

the:

Ability to adjust ones behaviour to demands arising in the situation is an example of

creative thinking. So by this view, conclusions from research on expertise might be

broadly relevant to creative thinking...The expert acquires a rich, highly complex

conceptual structure...Only as the result of experience and practice will an individual

possess the detailed representations of a situation needed to support creative thinking”

(Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 767).

Furthermore, Feltovich et al. (2006) have argued that experts are capable of transcending the

boundaries within their domain and that this is a finding that “has proven to be one of the most

enduring findings in the study of expertise” (Feltovich et al., 2006, p.47). Sawyer (2006) has also

argued that such boundary breaking activity is highly domain specific, and Kuhn (1970) and

Barker (1993) regard such boundary breaking as being the result of the domain expert seeking to

understand and resolve the problems in a domain. According to Sawyer (2006):

Creative people aren’t creative in a general, universal way; they’re creative in a specific

sphere of activity, a particular domain...Psychologists now know that creativity is

domain specific...Most domains of creative activity have been around for many

lifetimes...without first learning what has already been done a person doesn’t have the

raw material to create with (Sawyer, 2006, p. 59).

Furthermore Dai (2010) argues that:

To cultivate a person’s potential for creative productivity, it is crucial to develop in the

person a sense of what is possible...and what remains unknown, and what still lies

ahead...striving for high level understanding pushes one toward...detecting gaps,


discrepancies, or imperfections in the existing system, which calls for creative solutions

(Dai, 2010, p. 154).

Domain experts may therefore be the ones who establish new performance standards. For

instance, Weisberg (2006) argues that these individuals “develop new techniques or skills that

allow him or her to go beyond what had previously been accomplished in the domain. Such

innovations are in Ericsson’s view analogous to an elite athlete setting a new performance

standard” (Weisberg, 2006, p. 768).

A 9.3.5 Summary

This section of the literature review has examined the contribution that learned expertise makes

toward PCP. The literature suggests that human beings have the neurological capacity to learn

new skills and following significant amounts of effortful deliberate practice (commencing during

childhood), are able to physiologically adapt to a domain and develop superior pattern

recognition capabilities. The review suggests such expertise is highly domain specific and likely

to be built upon existing innate abilities. The literature also indicates that learned expertise may

be a necessary but insufficient pre condition for the attainment of PCP.

A 9.4 Personality-Behavioural Preference


The fourth part of the literature review examines the contribution of personality to the

attainment of PCP. Both the general personality literature, and the literature which specifically

examines the personality of the PCPer, is voluminous and a comprehensive review is beyond the

scope of this thesis. This review will therefore be limited to a discussion of three aspects of the

PCPer personality which are of most relevance to the findings of the study and the theoretical

framework used. Following a discussion of the definition of personality, the unique personality

characteristics of PCPers is examined. This is followed by an overview of the relative

contribution of heredity, genetics and environment toward the development of personality. The

‘subjectivizing-externalizing’ preference of PCPers is then provided; and this is followed by a

review of the ways in which early parental death and childhood trauma contribute to the

development of the subjectivising-externalizing personality. The extensive psychiatric and

psychological literature explaining the effects of trauma on developmental outcomes is not

reviewed. The review finishes with a discussion regarding sub-clinical psychoticism and its

impact on the subjectivizing-externalizing preferences of PCPers.


Personality is distinct from, but related to the more restricted concept of ‘temperament’, which

refers to the biological susceptibility toward certain stimuli (Deckers, 2005; Clark & Watson,

2008). Personality is a broad and multifaceted concept (John, Robins & Pervin, 2008), and this is

illustrated by the multitude of personality dimensions which have been identified, and the

number of assessment tools that have been developed (Myers, 1962; Eysenck, 1967; Cattell,

Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970; Costa and McCrae, 1985; Gough, 1987; John, 1989; John, Donahue &

Kentle, 1991; Goldberg, 1992; Beer, Arnold & Loehlin, 1998; Western, Gabbard & Ortigo,

2008; John, Naumann & Soto, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). A wide range of theories of

personality have also been documented (Freud, 1933; Maslow, 1954, 1968; Allport, 1965;

Rogers, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sheldon & Elliott, 1999; Western, Gabbard & Ortigo, 2008;

Ryan & Deci, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 2008).

Personality deals with individual similarities and differences. Personality research typically

examines either, the common characteristics of human beings (i.e. shared motives, goals and

psychological mechanisms), or the characteristic patterns or adaptions that individuals display

(Barenbaum & Winter, 2008; Buss, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). For instance, according to

Runco (2006):

Personality can be defined as that pattern of characteristic thoughts, feelings and

behaviours, that distinguishes one person from another and that persists over time and

situations...the critical feature is the unique way in which each person combines these

traits (Runco, 2006, p. 280).

Personality is more concisely defined by Roberts et al. (2008) as “the relatively enduring patterns

of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that distinguish individuals from one another” (Roberts,

Wood & Caspi, 2008, p. 375).

A 9.4.2 Background literature

There is a large body of literature demonstrating that PCPers have a distinct personality which

separates them from less successful individuals (Albert, 1983; Gardner, 1993; Eysenck, 1995;

Winner, 1996; Simonton, 1999; Reeve, 2005; Runco, 2006; Ackerman & Beier, 2006). Some

differences in PCPer personality have been identified between domains and several paradoxes

inherent in the creative personality have also been identified (Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010).

According to Simonton (2008) however, “the body of research seems to have reached a

consensus...that is, individuals who display high levels of creativity appear to differ from less


creative individuals on numerous cognitive and dispositional characteristics” (Simonton, 2008,

p. 683). Such findings echo the results identified during the initial studies conducted by the

Institute for Personality and Research (IPAR) (Mackinnon, 1965; Gardner, 1993) investigating

the creative personality. Personality has since become regarded as a significant variable

contributing toward PCP; possibly more significant than measures of innate and learned ability

(Eysenck, 1995), and certainly the most powerful non-intellectual factor involved in PCP

(Albert, 1992). Accordingly, Dacey and Lennon (1998) have argued that:

A certain set of personality traits proves far more important than having a high general

IQ, or domain specific ability, even one at the level of the prodigy…high ability

children without at least some of these factors have little hope of becoming major

creators as adults (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 98).

Moreover, in Eysenck’s (1995) view:

We are now in a position to consider as a whole the model of genius and creativity that

I have been at pains to construct...the novelty lies in my attempt to make personality

differences central to the argument...Previously personality traits were indeed studied,

but were never given the central position I believe they deserve (Eysenck, 1995, p. 279).

A more definitive statement regarding the significance of personality is perhaps provided by

Runco (2006), who argues that:

Creative individuals have particular traits and tendencies...empirical evidence over the

last 45 years makes a rather convincing case that creative people behave consistently

over time and situation and in ways that distinguish them from others. It is safe to say

that in general a ‘creative personality’ does exist and personality dispositions do

regularly and predictably relate to creative achievement….. many reasons exist for an

individual’s failure to develop ideas or to translate ideas into action, but one of the

more important influences appears to be the individual’s unique personality (Runco,

2006, p. 280).

According to Dacey and Lennon (1998) and Dai (2010), attempts to identify a direct causal link

between specific personality factors and PCP have so far been unsuccessful. Despite this, “it

seems clear…that these personal qualities are intimately involved in the creative process...in


addition, they seem to appear with consistency across people and time” (Dacey & Lennon,

1998, p. 98). Recognising this state of affairs, Albert (1992) concluded that there is a pattern

personality factors which link to PCP, not merely a mixed assortment of factors. Furthermore,

Dacey and Lennon (1998) argue that such a variety of factors are included within this

constellation of personality traits and, that both psychoanalytic and humanistic theories of

personality are supported.

Table 26 lists those personality factors which most strongly correlate with PCP.

TABLE 26: PCP PERSONALITY FACTORS

Energy, Honesty and trustworthiness,

Dominance, Independence,

Resistance to social pressure, Marginality

Risk taking, Self promotion-expression/extroverted

Rebelliousness, Low conformity,

Need for achievement, Tolerance for ambiguity,

Contradiction and paradox, Openness

Imaginative, Stimulus freedom,

Functional freedom, Flexibility,

Preference for disorder, Novelty,

Complexity and stimulation, Impulsivity,

Sub-clinical psychoticism, Androgyny,

Intuitiveness, Playfulness and naivety,

Creative self-concept, Self-control,

Delayed gratification, Concentration and discipline,

Long term endurance, Persistence and resilience,

Perfectionism, Ambitiousness,

Positive explanatory style, Sociability,

Introversion, Strong self-monitoring and sensitivity to social

norms,

Mastery orientation, Confidence,

Internal locus of control, Emotional stability.

(Murray, 1938; Terman & Oden, 1959; Atkinson, 1964; McClelland, 1965; Kuhn, 1970;

Mackinnon, 1978; Perkins, 1981; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Amabile, 1983; McCrae & Costa,

1987; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Shekerjian, 1991; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Spangler, 1992;


Gardner, 1993; Eysenck, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Barron, 1995; Kotter, 1996;

Utterback, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Sternberg, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Fiest, 1998;

Piirto, 1998; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2002; Hargadon, 2003; Reeve, 2005; Runco, 2006).

Personality characteristics which correlate with less successful individuals include, very high ego

orientation, conformity, lacking confidence, lack of persistence and pessimism (Terman &

Oden, 1959; Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1995; Csikzentmihalyi, 1997).

Much research has also focused upon identifying the relative contribution of nature and nurture

toward the development of the PCPer personality. Historically the literature has advocated an

‘essentialist’ (Dai, 2010) or nature oriented view (Galton, 1869; Cox, 1926). Reinforcing this

view, Amabile (1996) has argued that:

The most active area of creativity research, then, has been the description of the

particular characteristics of famous or widely recognised creative people…or the

description of differences in personality and intellect between people…implicit in much

of this work is the assumption that the important characteristics of creative people are

largely innate (or at least largely immalleable), and that these characteristics clearly and

reliably separate creative people from non-creative people (Amabile, 1996, p. 4).

Contemporary researchers (Buss, 2008; Clark & Watson, 2008; Krueger & Johnson, 2008)

however, argue that personality is equally determined by nature and nurture. It is estimated that,

in addition to establishing distinct neurological, neurochemical, structural and functional

differences in the brain, genetic and hereditary influences contribute approximately 40% to 60%

toward the development of personality (Zuckerman, 1974, 1985; Neary & Zuckerman, 1976;

Eysenck, 1990; Stelmack, 1990; Kagan & Snidman, 1991; Bullock & Gilliland, 1993; Hur &

Bouchard, 1997; Deckers, 2005; Western, Gabbard & Ortigo, 2008; Canli, 2008; Barenbaum &

Winter, 2008). In contrast, environmental influences such as early childhood events (Bowlby,

1969; Jensen, 1969; Dacey & Lennon, 1998), parenting strategies (Pomerantz & Thompson,

2008), and other influences (Buss, 2008), are believed to account for the remaining 40% to 60%

variation in personality (Buss, 2008; Clark & Watson, 2008; Krueger & Johnson, 2008).

Notwithstanding the significance of nature and nurture influences, there does appear to be a

general consensus within the contemporary literature that personality development is the

product of a complex interaction between traits, self-concept and epigenetic influences (Mischel

& Shoda, 2008; Pomerantz & Thompson, 2008; Higgins & Scholer, 2008; Buss, 2008; Western,

Gabbard & Ortigo, 2008; Canli, 2008; Krueger & Johnson, 2008). Once formed however,


personality appears to be relatively stable and resistant to change (Rubin, 1982; Cronbach, 1990;

Dudek & Hall, 1991; Mackinnon, 1992; Roberts, Wood & Capsi, 2008), and this stability of

personality is believed to be primarily attributable to genetic influences (Clark & Watson, 2008).

Personality does, however, continue to change throughout the lifespan (Roberts, Wood, &

Capsi, 2008; Swann & Bosson, 2008) and these changes are thought to be primarily attributable

to environmental influences (Clark & Watson, 2008).

A proper conceptualisation of personality must therefore be based on a theoretical view of

people as purposeful systems and the ways in which people relate to their environment (Ackoff

& Emery, 1972; Buss, 2008). Accordingly, Emery (1999b) argues that “personality is not

conceived as an unobservable intervening variable that is invoked to explain choice, but as an

observable function that describes how an individual converts a choice situation into an

expected relative value for himself” (Emery, 1999b, p. 10). Ackoff and Emery (1972)

conceptualize four personality dimensions, two reflecting the influence of the environment on

the individual, and two reflecting the influence of the individual on the environment. Section

A9.4.3 below examines two dimensions of this model of personality in further detail. The

dimensions of subjectivizing and externalizing have been selected for their relevance to the

personality factors listed above.

A 9.4.3 Subjectivizing- externalizing

Peak Creative Performer’s (PCP’s) prefer to influence their environment, produce novelty, take

risks and pursue ends which they desire. Evidence for these tendencies comes from studies

examining, independence (Runco, 2006), the implementation of social and cultural change

(Kuhn, 1970; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Hargadon, 2003), and sensation seeking and risk taking

(Zuckerman, 2007). The trait of independence appears to correspond closely with the

behavioural preference for subjectivizing. The traits of sensation seeking and risk taking appear

to correspond closely with the behavioural preference for externalizing (Ackoff & Emery, 1972).

According to Runco (2006), creative work is always original. The pursuit of such work is

difficult for most individuals because of their sensitivity to social norms and social influence

(Lewin, 1948; Asch, 1952; Torrence, 1995; Runco, 2006). Creative and original work therefore

requires (a) that the environment provide a degree of autonomy and independence, or (b) that

individuals influence their environment in order to create the necessary degree of autonomy and

independence (Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010). According to Findlay and Lumsden (1988), PCPers

have; “a number of personality traits…correlated with creativity, including...a substantial degree

of autonomy of judgement, a resistance to social pressures...and shyness” (Findlay & Lumsden,


1988, p. 17). This evidence is consistent with early studies from the Institute for Personality

Assessment and Research (IPAR) (Mackinnon, 1975), and the findings that:

Creative architects feel their primary responsibility is to their own standards of what is

right and proper in architectural design...the independence with which creative

architects work is revealed...in the frequency with which they assert they are not team

men and prefer to work alone (Mackinnon, 1975, p. 274).

After re-examining the IPAR interview data Runco (2006) also concluded that:

Architects 1 (most creative), more often that either architects 2 or 3, see themselves as

inventive, determined, independent, individualistic, enthusiastic and industrious....a

strikingly different image of the self-held by both architects 2 and 3, who more often

check....responsible, sincere, reliable, dependable, clear thinking, tolerant and

understanding (Runco, 2006, p. 283).

Echoing these findings, Simonton (2008) argues that “creative persons are prone to exhibit a

high degree of independence and autonomy, often displaying a pronounced rebellious streak in

their categorical refusal to conform to conventional norms” (Simonton, 2008, p. 685).

Furthermore, Tomkins (1962) concluded that PCPers have “a tolerance for the distress and

discouragement and shame that are inevitably evoked by any long term effort...closely related to

the wish to create is a streak of negativism - an unwillingness to accept information or directives

from others” (Tomkins, 1962, p. 364).

According to Ackoff and Emery (1972), the subjectivizing personality (described above in terms

of autonomy and independence), does not mean that such individuals are insensitive to their

environment. Overwhelmingly, reviews of the contemporary evidence on creativity indicate that

quite the opposite is the case (Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010).

Creative individuals appear to be keenly aware of their environment but also demonstrate

‘stimulus freedom’, ‘delay of gratification’, ‘resilience’ and ‘self-control’ (Albert, 1983; Sternberg

& Lubart, 1995; Shekerjian, 1991; Torrence, 1995; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Dai, 2010).

According to Runco (2006) however, it is possible that the paradox of independence of thought

and sensitivity to the environment results in the perception of creative individuals as marginal in

status, or that they intentionally marginalise themselves.

The second body of literature which indicates the presence of a subjectivizing behavioural

preference in PCPers, is the literature examining cultural change. This literature suggests that


despite facing high levels of resistance and criticism, PCPers are able to continue with their

endeavours. Resistance is experienced by; ‘pioneers’ (Kuhn, 1970; Barker, 1993), ‘creators’

(Feldman et al., 1994; Utterback, 1996; Christiensen, 1997; Tushman & O’Riley, 2002;

Haragdon, 2003), ‘opinion leaders’ (Lewin, 1948; Emery & Oezer, 1958), ‘lead users’ (Von

Hipple, 2005), ‘organisational leaders’ (Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Kotter, 1996), and anyone

instigating cultural change (Toynbee, 1955, 1972; Schein, 1996). Accordingly, Dacey and Lennon

(1998) argue that “sooner or later, all creative people encounter obstacles...by definition, they

typically go against what everyone else is doing and must have great powers of perseverance to

continue on the path they believe to be correct” (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 112). Moreover, in

Barron, Montuori and Barron’s (1997) view, during the early stages of the creative process

PCPers become aware that:

Taking ones creative product out of the shelter of the studio or laboratory is in itself an

act of courage...The creator balances this fear against the need to present the idea for

public consideration and possibly harsh criticism. As we present our creative products

to others, perhaps we also need the knowledge that we are pushing our own boundaries

along with those of our audience. We are naked to ourselves as well as to others.

(Barron, Montuori & Barron, 1997, p. 205).

PCPers do not simply face opposition; they experience intensive forms of resistance including

physical violence, ridicule, and political action and retribution. Regarding this point Tomkins

(1962) has argued that “no-one who dares to explore real novelty and to challenge the basic

beliefs by which men live...can indefinitely avoid corrosive self-doubt, shame, distress, fear and

aggression” (Tomkins, 1962, p. 365). Despite this, PCPers seem to be able to withstand and

overcome intensive forms of resistance, often doing so alone with little social support. For

instance, Dacey and Lennon (1998) have suggested that:

The person who comes up with an original idea must have the courage to be a minority

of one...you must not be afraid of being alone. A lot of people have good ideas and see

different pathways and never have the courage to go against the crowd. There are few

who can endure the psychological pain of this position for very long, so they

prematurely discard the ideas that if followed up and worked on might prove to be of

great value (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 113).

The behavioural preference for ‘subjectivising’ (Ackoff & Emery, 1972), appears therefore, to be

a hallmark characteristic of the PCPer (Gardner, 1993). It allows PCPers to be guided by their


own ideas, make their own rules (Sternberg, 1997), and pursue the ends which they desire

(Emery, 1999a) regardless of the resistance which is encountered (Runco, 2006).

Ackoff and Emery (1972) and Emery (1999b) use the term ‘externalizing’ to refer to the

opposite personality pole to subjectivizing. Externalizing is the propensity for an individual to

influence his or her environment In addition to proposing a biological foundation for

‘subjectivizing’, Eysenck’s (1995) analysis also indicates that the PCPer has a behavioural

preference which combines subjectivizing and externalizing preferences. Other indicators of an

‘externalizing’ preference by PCPers come from Zuckerman’s (1964, 1974, 1985, 2007) studies

of ‘sensation seeking’ and ‘risk taking’.

Sensation seeking is a personality trait defined as “the seeking of varied, novel, complex and

intense sensations and experiences, and a willingness to take physical, social, legal and financial

risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27). Sensation seeking is comprised

of four sub factors: ‘thrill and adventure seeking’, experience seeking’, ‘disinhibition’, ‘boredom

susceptibility’ and ‘uninhibited’ temperament (Atkinson, 1964; Kagan & Snidman, 1991;

Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005). It is a personality trait associated with many of the behaviours that

are also displayed by creative individuals. These behaviours include: (a) rejection of conventional

strictures, (b) searching out novelty, (c) responding to stimuli with high levels of positive affect,

(d) development of addictive behaviour, and (e) risk taking (Zuckerman, 1990, 2007; Tellegen et

al., 1988; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Deckers 2005; Canli, 2008). Regarding the latter point, Runco

(2006) notes that creative individuals do not take compulsive risks and prefer calculated

moderate risk taking.

According to Eysenck (1995), the biological basis for the PCPer subjectivizing-externalizing

preference emerges from high levels of sub clinical psychoticism which is associated with

independence and sensation seeking. In Eysenck’s (1995) words:

High P scorers are original and unsocialised...the element common to creativity and

psychoticism...the Zuckerman Sensation-seeking scales (SSS) correlate...significantly

with P (Psychoticism)...Given the correlation between SSS and P, Zuckerman’s result

seems to support the P-creativity connection (Eysenck, 1995, pp. 237-266).

A 9.4.4 Early trauma

As discussed in Section A 9.4.2 above, personality is influenced by both genetic and

environmental factors. According to Eysenck (1995) and Runco (2006) however, there are two


factors identified in the creativity literature which may contribute to the development of the

PCPer ‘subjectivizer-externalizer’ behavioural preference: (a) early trauma and (b) the dopamine-

serotonin balance.

There appears to be a general consensus that the first few years of life are a critical

developmental period (Dacey & Lennon, 1998; John, Robins & Pervin, 2008). During this

period “the influence of the environment is…typically as great as the influence of genes”

(Krueger and Johnson, 2008). Furthermore, from an attachment theory perspective, it is argued

that:

Early in life there are many pathways along which a person might develop, and a variety

of destinations at which the person might arrive...once a development trajectory

becomes established it becomes ‘canalized’....it is during unusual periods of

transition...that a person is most likely to be forced onto one developmental track or

another. This idea has been well supported in a 20 year longitudinal study (Fraley &

Shaver, 2008, p. 523).

Against this backdrop, the PCP literature contains a significant finding; PCPers experience

higher than average rates of trauma and parental loss during childhood. According to Albert

(1992), the findings of the literature regarding “how early parent death works in the

development of a child is not clearly understood” (Albert, 1992, p. 152). Despite this, Albert

(1978), Eysenck (1995) and Runco (2006) believe that trauma and parental death contribute in

some way to the development of the unique personality of the PCPer. For instance, according

to Eysenck (1995):

One in four had lost at least one parent before the age of 10. By the age of 15 the loss

had exceeded 34%, and 45% by the age of 20. These losses almost certainly exceeded

those suffered by the average citizen...the death of mother or both parents by the age of

15 was three times more frequent in the sample of eminent people than in the general

population…the evidence to be reviewed immediately reveals a paradox. On the one

hand, creative achievers typically receive much intellectual stimulation...on the other

hand, a disproportionate number of creative achievers lost one or both parents in

childhood...early bereavement does not fit well into the idyllic picture of a home

devoting much energy to the stimulation...of the young child. Yet both sides of the

paradox are well documented (Eysenck, 1995, p. 131).


Echoing this sentiment, Albert (1983) also argues that “another feature to the data is that there

is an increased proportion of early parental deaths among the samples, as we move from usual

to unusual developmental outcomes” (Albert, 1983, p. 147).

Trauma and parental death can produce a variety of outcomes (that are either adaptive or

maladaptive). Responses to trauma can vary according to (a) genetic predisposition, (b) the life

stress history of a particular individual, (c) the nature of psychological meaning assigned to the

trauma or (d) effects emerging from a constellation of influences (Albert, 1983;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Canli, 2008). In the case of PCPers, four mechanisms are proposed to

account for adaptive responses to childhood trauma and parental death (a) the resilience effect,

(b) the bereavement or compensatory needs effect, (c) the unconventional effect and (d)

neurochemical, epigenetic and psychoticism effects (Albert, 1992; Eysenck, 1995; Sawyer, 2007).

Buss (2008) discusses aspects of the ‘resilience effect’ and argues that:

These early experiences, in essence lock in a person to one strategy to the exclusion of

others...had the environmental input been different...the critical event of early father

presence versus absence...Individuals growing up in father absent homes...develop

expectations that parental resources will not be reliably or predictably provided (Buss,

2008, p. 46).

Furthermore, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1997):

The mere fact of not having a father is not what affects the latter life of such children;

what counts is…for the bereaved child to interpret the loss as a sign that he must take

on adult responsibilities and try harder to live up to expectations (Csikszentmihalyi,

1997, p. 169).

The parallels between the resilience effect and the development of the subjectivizing preference,

described above in Section A 9.4.3, are immediately obvious.

Regarding the ‘bereavement-compensatory effect’, Runco’s (2006) survey of the literature shows

that “adversity often is used to explain creative effort” (Runco, 2006, p. 46). According to Albert

(1992), bereavement and “early parental death appears to give drive and focus” (Albert, 1992,

p.147). In Eysenck’s (1995) view, “the pursuit of excellence may be an attempt to over-

compensate for the anxiety and feelings of guilt and unworthiness that the child may experience


as a consequence of the bereavement...or the loss may produce a need for power” (Eysenck,

1995, p. 132). Similarly Dacey and Lennon (1998) suggest that:

Compensation for a problematic childhood certainly appears to be catalytic in the lives

of many highly productive people, as the psychoanalytic position would suggest...once

the pain and stress of bereavement had been mastered, a strong motivation to excel

developed (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 137).

A more comprehensive discussion of the relationship between childhood trauma and

motivation is outlined in Section A 9.6 below.

The third effect; ‘the unconventional effect’, is also closely related to subjectivizing, via its

influence on ones sense of freedom and sense of responsibility. Illustrating this effect

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) cites case study evidence to show:

The effect on his life of his father’s death...both his sense of almost arrogant autonomy

and the feeling of responsibility that drives him...a young boy deprived of his father

may feel a great sense of liberation, a freedom to be and do anything he wants to...at

the same time, he may feel the tremendous burden of having to live up to the

expectations… a fatherless boy has the opportunity to invent who he is...it is possible

that the complex and often tortured personality of creative individuals is in part shaped

by this (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 168).

In addition to each of the three effects outlined above, it has been argued by Western, Gabbard

and Ortigo (2008) and Brentro, Mitchell and McCall (2009), that early trauma and parental death

may alter the neurochemical development of the brain and, result in various forms of emotional

dysregulation According to Western et al. (2008):

Clinicians have long recognised, and research has subsequently documented, a link

between early trauma...and what is increasingly coming to be called emotional

dysregulation...we know that early trauma has long lasting effects on neuroendocrine

functioning (Western et al., 2008, p. 90).

Both Albert (1983) and Runco (2006) argue that PCPers experience environments likely to

create such emotional dysregulation. In a study of 400 eminent individuals Runco (2006) also

found strong similarities in the pattern of upbringing among eminent creators and criminal


populations. Specifically, eminent persons had, in their childhood, “experienced trauma,

deprivations, frustrations and conflicts of the kind commonly thought to predispose one to

mental illness or delinquency” (Runco, 2006, p. 46). Identical results were found by Albert

(1983) who concluded that “it is not only eminent persons who have a significantly high

frequency of such experiences...the percentages for adult criminals, adult psychiatric patients

(especially depressives), and eminent adults are high and quite close to one another” (Albert,

1983, p. 147).

According to Eysenck (1995), emotional dysregulation may have adaptive and maladaptive

manifestations. Section A 9.4.3 discussed the linkage between psychoticism and subjectivizing.

In addition however, Eysenck (1995) suggests that trauma may be associated with emotional

dysregulation which in turn presents as psychoticism and may manifest as criminality or the

subjectivizing behavioural preferences of PCPers. According to Eysenck (1995), the causal

mechanisms linking these variables may be genetic or environmental. In Eysenck’s (1995) view

however, the common underlying factor that:

Delinquents and suicidal depressives share with geniuses (is) the personality trait of

psychoticism...this may be associated with early death of parents, either through genetic

causes (high P parents are more likely to die young, and also hand on their high P genes

to their children), or through the psychological reactions of the children (Eysenck,

1995, p. 132).

The following sections expand on the ways the psychological trait of psychoticism may underlie

other aspects of PCP. The following sections also place greater emphasis upon the genetic

factors influencing the development of the PCP personality, as opposed to the environmental

influences discussed above.

A 9.4.5 Genetics and subjectivizing

The second group of factors influencing the development of the subjectivizing-externalizing

personality are genetic factors.

Several researchers are supportive of a strong genetic hypothesis. For instance, Deckers (2005)

argues that “similarity in sensation seeking is more the result of genetic similarity...than it is the

result of environmental similarity” (Deckers, 2005, p. 234). There appears, however, to be

particularly strong support for psychoticism as a central variable in this hypothesis. According to

Eysenck (1995):


The question of the biological basis of psychoticism...fits well with at least some of

these models...it may not be too long before an agreed theory of biological causation

for P arises... there is a common genetic basis for great potential in creativity...it appears

to be psychoticism...that is the vital element…practically all the variables we have found

associated with creativity and genius have a genetic component (Eysenck, 1995, pp.

234-279).

Most significantly, Eysenck (1995) suggests that “it would be surprising if personality,

particularly P (psychoticism)…were not instrumental in determining a persons’ degree

of…creativity” (Eysenck, 1995, p. 267). Furthermore, Clark and Watson (2008) reinforce

psychoticism as a contributor to PCP personality by arguing that the:

Accumulating evidence increasingly appears to support the view that...it is more

parsimonious to consider temperament dimensions as underlying both personality traits

and various mental disorders than to view personality and psychopathy as separate

domains...such a proposal is being considered seriously by the DSM-V Task Force

(Clark & Watson, 2008, p. 281).

Two factors thought to underpin the genetic hypothesis of PCP personality are the DRD2 allele

and the resultant influence on the dopamine-serotonin ratio (Eysenck, 1995). These two

variables are believed to be causal factors underlying several aspects of PCP, including:

1. Psychiatric disorders,

2. Addictive behaviour,

3. Cognitive inhibition,

4. Over inclusive thinking,

5. Deviance, marginality, counterformity and criminality,

6. Psychopathy (as measured by the personality trait psychoticism),

7. Sensation seeking.

(Prentky, 1980; Richards, 1981; Mason, 1984; Swerdlow & Koob, 1987; Carlsson, 1988;

Zuckerman, 1990; Eysenck, 1995; Clark & Watson, 2008).

Such findings led Eysenck (1995), and Clark and Watson (2008) to conclude that sub clinical

psychoticism (and its genetic underpinnings, the DRD2 allele) is central to the PCP personality.

Barenbaum and Winter (2008), however, offer a more conservative interpretation and, in


accordance with Section A 9.4.2, acknowledge that there remains a complex relationship

between genetic factors and personality.

A 9.4.6 Summary

This part of the literature review has examined the role of personality and its contribution to the

attainment of PCP. The literature suggests that, in addition their innate abilities and learned

expertise, PCPers have a distinctive personality profile. PCPers appear to have a subjectivizing-

externalizing behavioural preference, meaning that the PCPer is an independent risk taker who

is guided by his or her own ideas and is capable of developing novel works as well as being

resilient in the face the social pressure which is often associated with creative work. It would

appear that the development of such preferences, are contributed to by PCPer reactions to early

parental death and the presence of sub clinical levels of psychoticism. Furthermore, it is argued

that the presence of psychoticism may be the result of genetic factors such as the DRD2 allele

and the dopamine-serotonin ratio.

The next section of the review discusses the degree to which PCPers appear to display goal

setting, purposeful or ideal seeking behaviour.

A 9.5 Purposeful-ideal seeking behaviour


The fifth section of this literature review examines the prevalence of goal seeking, purposeful or

ideal seeking behaviour among PCPers, and the contribution that such behaviour makes toward

the attainment of PCP. The review begins with an overview of the different levels at which

human beings may function, including, the capacity for individuals to make choices, display will

and influence their environment. The review then examines three topics: (a) the relationship

between goal setting and performance, (b) the processes by which goals and purposes emerge

during the lifetime of the PCPer, and (c) an overview of the conditions necessary for the

emergence of higher levels of functioning such as purposeful and ideal seeking behaviour.

According to Emery (1977), three modes of behaviour are possible: goal seeking, purposeful

behaviour and ideal seeking. Emery (1977) argues that individuals can be constrained in their

level of functioning such that they operate as goal seeking systems; meaning that the individual

“is able, in different situations, to choose paths that lead to a common end” (Emery, 1977, p. 7).

In addition to this type of functioning, Emery (1977) suggests that:


Men are not limited simply to adapting to the environment as given. Insofar as they

understand the laws governing their environment they can modify the conditions

producing their subsequent environments and hence radically change the definition of

an adaptive response (Emery, 1977, p. 67).

Human beings may therefore be defined as ‘purposeful’, because they have the capacity for

consciousness (to be aware of awareness (Emery, (1999a)), choice and self-regulation, and to

select between alternative goals and the means by which to pursue them. These capacities enable

individuals to actively adapt to their environment, develop a sense of identity, imagine future

states, display ‘will’ and express their uniqueness (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960; Ackoff &

Emery, 1972; Chein, 1972; Sommerhoff, 1974; Emery, 1999a; Robins, Tracey & Trzesniewski,

2008).

In addition, in regard to purposeful behaviour, Emery (1977) has argued that human beings may

behave as ‘ideal seeking systems’; meaning that individuals:

Could be confronted by choice between purposes or the objectives of those purposes. It

seemed to us that that was what ideals are about. Endlessly approachable but

unattainable in themselves, ideals enable people (a) to maintain continuity of direction

and social cohesiveness by choosing another objective when one is achieved, or the

effort to achieve it has failed; and (b) to sacrifice objectives in a manner consistent with

the maintenance of direction and social cohesion (Emery, 1977, p. 69).

Emery (1999a), suggests that ideals are unattainable ends which represent ultimate strivings

capable of being forever approached.

Much of the literature dealing with the level of individual functioning (particularly the sport

psychology literature) examines goal setting behaviour (i.e. the lowest of the three levels of

individual functioning outlined above) (Williams, 1992; Singer, Murphey & Tennant, 1993).

Table 27 outlines findings from this literature that are of relevance to this study.

TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF GOAL SETTING LITERATURE

Goals and objectives have an energising and

directing function.

(Klinger, 1977; Deckers, 2005).


There is a positive correlation between goal

focus, goal commitment and goal attainment

(Erez, Earley & Hulin, 1985; Hollenbeck,

Klein, O’Leary & Wright, 1989; Klein,

Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright & DeShon, 2001;

Deckers, 2005).

Clear, specific and difficult goals result in

higher levels of performance, motivation and

persistence.

(Deckers, 2005).

Goals should be self-set, achievable, be of high

utility, incorporate useful feedback and

learning and combine long term, short term,

performance, and mastery dimensions.

(Emery, 1977; Deckers, 2005).

Goals fail to motivate behaviour if feedback is

absent.

(Miller et al., 1960; Schank & Ableson, 1977;

Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Becker, 1978;

Locke & Latham, 1990; Emery, 1999a).

Performance goals produce less productive

thinking, approach behaviour and positive

affect than do mastery goals.

(Williams, 1992; Singer, Murphey & Tennant,

1993; Kohn, 1999; Reeve, 2005),

Long term goals enhance intrinsic motivation

in relation to interesting tasks. Short term

goals enhance motivation in relation to

uninteresting tasks.

(Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005).

Short term goals may be perceived as

intrusive, controlling and reduce intrinsic

motivation and self-determination.

(Reeve, 2005).

Negatively framed goals and avoidance goals

are less effective than positively framed goals

or approach goals.

(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Shelly, 1994;

Reeve, 2005).

Psychological skills may enhance the efficacy

of goal setting

(Williams, 1992; Singer, Murphy & Tennant,

1993).

The complete absence of goals results in a

focusing of attention on activities which

require the least time and effort

(Tolman, 1932; Zipf, 1949; Csikzentmihalyi,

1975; Locke & Latham, 1990; Singer, Murphy

& Tennant, 1993; Bandura, 1997; Deckers,

2005; Reeve, 2005).

In addition to the findings outlined above, a plethora of popular self-help literature also exists in

relation to goal setting (for example, Bandler & Grinder, 1983; Robbins, 1997; Covey, 2004).

Notwithstanding this wealth of information, Reeve (2005) argues that the effectiveness of goal


setting techniques is often limited because there are many variables which can influence

motivation and behaviour. According to Reeve (2005):

Goal setting seems so promising, so ripe with potential, as a motivational intervention

…Unfortunately, motivational processes are not that simple. The gap between goal

directed thinking and goal directed action can be a wide one (Reeve, 2005, p. 214).

The goal setting literature appears, therefore, to offer an insufficient basis upon which to

examine PCP and conceptualise higher levels of human functioning. Against this backdrop, the

remainder of this section will focus upon two topics which have been selected for their

relevance to PCP: (a) the emergence of purposes and, (b) the conditions which form the basis

for purposeful and ideal seeking behaviour.

A 9.5.2 Emergence of purposes

Historically the creative individual has been portrayed as wild, uninhibited, impulsive and, in

general, as having unclear purposes. According to Dacey and Lennon (1998) however, this

stereotypical depiction is based on a romantic notion of creativity which does not accord with

contemporary research. In contrast, Dacey and Lennon (1998) recognise that:

In order to accomplish something of such magnitude, it is necessary to have great

discipline...An almost symbiotic relationship exists between creativity and self-control,

in that one needs creativity in order to envision a plan or visualise a desired outcome,

two elements that are essential to self-control. One also needs self-control in order to

use time wisely, work diligently and have the perseverance to develop creative products

fully (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 116).

Dacey and Lennon (1998) suggest that two forms of self-control are developed during

childhood, (a) the immediate control used in daily life, and (b) the ability to sustain effort toward

long term ends. Moreover, Dacey and Lennon (1998) state that:

These two types of self-control are mutually inclusive; where will I be one year from

now is going to be influenced by our impulse control in the moment; how we control

ourselves in the moment is going to be influenced by where we want to be one year

from now (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 132).


PCPers are individuals who appear to be on an endless quest to pursue ends that they desire.

Illustrating this proposition, Wallace and Gruber (1989) argue that “creative achievement is

accomplished chiefly through purposeful work” (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 16). Furthermore,

Wallace and Gruber (1989) suggest that creative work:

Begins with a vision of things as they are not...responds to surprises without losing

sight of its goals...when someone is purposeful, we mean that he or she cannot easily be

deflected from the pursuit of a chosen course (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 10).

Reinforcing this view, Dacey and Lennon (1998) argue that:

Creatively gifted children...have great drive and great willingness to work hard over long

periods in order to accomplish their goals...successful creators...have always been driven

to continue with their work and have retained a clear sense of purpose to complete the

work they have set for themselves (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 112).

In addition to the establishment of the direction and self-discipline of the PCPer, Emery

(1999a), Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990, 1997) and Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988)

have each highlighted the way in which ideal seeking is associated with the ‘time freedom’

necessary for PCPers to engage in creative behaviour.

The long term ends described above accord with Emery’s (1977) conceptualisation of

purposeful behaviour. Other conceptions of PCPer purposefulness discussed within the

literature include, ‘organisation of purpose’ (Gruber, 1981), ‘specific objectives and goals’

(Kraus, 2002), ‘definite chief aim’ (Hill, 2004), ‘personal image of excellence’ and ‘goal

orientation’ (Williams, 1992), ‘striving’ (Galton, 1869), ‘a well-integrated self-concept’ and

‘successful intelligence’ (Sternberg, 1997), ‘self-regulation’, ‘self-control’ and ‘delay of

gratification’ (Dacey & Lennon, 1998). Underachievement on the other hand, is consistently

associated with unclear goals, lack of ambition and lack of resilience (Eysenck, 1995; Dacey &

Lennon, 1998; Kraus, 2003).

Returning to Reeve’s (2005) argument, much of the popular literature, goal setting and sport

psychology literature, suggests that purposes can be arbitrarily established by individuals at any

point during their lifespan (Bandler & Grinder, 1983; Robbins, 1997; Singer, Murphy &

Tennant, 1993; Covey, 2004). According to Gruber (1981), Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) and

Csikzentmihalyi (1997) however, it is common for such purposes to be evident among ‘gifted

and talented’ individuals at a young age. The majority of case study evidence, however, suggests


that purposes emerge or evolve via a gradual process involving interplay between knowledge,

purposes and affects (Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Sosniak, 2006).

At a young age, purposes are vague when compared with the clarity of the goals of a mature

PCPer. According to Sosniak (2006):

Typically there was no early intention of working toward a standard of excellence in a

particular field. Instead of early discovery followed by development, we found that the

individuals were encouraged and supported in considerable learning before they were

identified as special and then accorded even more encouragement and support. More

time and interest invested in the talent field resulted in further identification of special

qualities that in turn were again rewarded with more encouragement and support.

Aptitudes, attitudes and expectations grew in concert with one another and were

mutually confirming...the individuals were transformed, the substance of what was

being learned was transformed...students progressively adopted different views of who

they were (Sosniak, 2006, p. 289).

Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) have conceptualised the ‘emergence of purpose’, as a

‘problem finding’ process. Similarly Feldman et al. (1994) have argued that, when PCPers

commence a piece of work:

There is only vague unease and dimly felt emotional or intellectual tension. Because the

problem (purposes) itself has yet to be defined...great creative breakthroughs...involve

this kind of cognitive approach...the correlation between discovery orientation and

success as a creative artist was still significant 7 years later (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 140).

There are also strong parallels between the processes underpinning the emergence of ‘insight’

(Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947), and the ‘emergence of purposes’. For instance, according to

Wallace and Gruber (1989):

The individual moment of insight does not represent such a sudden break with the

past...it seems safe to say that all examples of creative insight occur within protracted

creative processes...insights often represent a moment of consolidation...it is affectively

laden in a way that accentuates the experience. This leads the person to preserve and

pursue the new idea (Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 18).


Ultimately, the ends which individuals pursue reflect a complex combination of influences.

Table 28 below summarises several of the key influences outlined in the literature.

TABLE 28: FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ENDS PURSUED

Networks of enterprise (Wallace & Gruber, 1989).

Positive affect of ‘flow’ or ‘autotelic activities’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975).

Problem finding effects (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Feldman et

al., 1994).

Motivation arising from discrepancy reducing

and creating processes.

(Reeve, 2005).

Changing levels of aspiration and hope

resulting from successful or unsuccessful

action.

(Lewin, 1948; Frankl, 1962; Bandura &

Cervone, 1986; Renzulli, 1986; Izard, 1991;

Josephs, Markus & Tafarodi, 1992; Bandura,

1997; Ackerman & Rolfus, 1999; Ackerman &

Beier, 2001; Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005; Dai

& Renzulli, 2008).

Deviance amplifying mechanisms. (Maruyama, 1963; Wallace & Gruber, 1989).

Crystallizing experiences and moments of

insight.

(Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Emery, 1999;

Runco, 2006).

Fixation upon specific ends. (Lewin, 1999).

Parenting, social and self-identity influences. (Dacey & Lennon, 1998).

Investment effects resulting from the sheer

duration of creative work.

(Wallace & Gruber, 1989).

Individual personality traits and personality

structures.

Emmons, 1989a, 1989b; Dweck, 1999;

Feldman et al., 1994; Reeve, 2005; John et al.,

2008).

Pursuit of ideals (beauty, homonomy,

nurturance and humanity).

(Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a).

Once formed, Tomkins (1962) argues that purposes represent an ‘image’ which is “a centrally

emitted blueprint...of an end state...compounded of diverse sensory, affective and memory

imagery or any combination of these” (Tomkins, 1962, p. 121). Such ends are also

conceptualised by (Angyal, 1941) as the ‘system principle’ for that individual.


PCPers display a strong sense of purposefulness toward desired ends, and often appear to be in

pursuit of an endless quest. The nature of the ends which are pursued by PCPers (i.e. ideals

(Emery, 1999a)), and the intensity with which they are pursued, appear, therefore, to be

different from those of non PCPers (goal seeking (Emery, 1999a)). Moreover, there appears to

be general consensus that PCPers choose to pursue ends aimed at ‘changing the world’. For

instance, Feldman et al. (1994) argue that:

Some people seem more inclined to adjust themselves to fit the world that is perceived,

others will go to extreme lengths to change their personal world if it deviates even

slightly from their idea of what it ought to be…this purposefulness or intentionality…is

born of an ability to reflect on experience…as well as a tendency to believe in the

possibility of making changes to better achieve our ends…while all human beings

develop the processes we are describing, they do not all develop them in similar ways.

The input into them varies with the sensitivities and inclinations of the particular

individual (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 31).

Echoing this view, Wallace and Gruber (1989) argue that:

Creative people commit themselves to creative tasks...they hope to make some change

in the sum of human knowledge and experience...it is a choice, for it is entirely possible

to make the opposite commitment: to live in the hopes of not causing a ripple (Wallace

& Gruber, 1989, p. 8).

A 9.5.3 Conditions for ideal seeking

Section A 2.5.2 provided an overview of the contribution that ideal seeking makes toward the

attainment of PCP. In view of the significance of this behaviour, it is appropriate to survey the

literature which discusses the conditions which underpin and enable ideal seeking behaviour.

As indicated above, purposes emerge from a complex range of influences. Despite this, much of

the existing literature offers a ‘generic’ (Emery, 1999a) or ‘essentialist’ (Dai, 2010) account of the

ends that individuals (and PCPers) pursue (Emmons, 1989; Reeve, 2005; Deckers 2005). For

instance, Dai (2010) argues:

It is safe to assume, based on the preponderance of evidence that individuals vary in the

ways their selfhood is constructed and in the extent to which they develop enduring


interests, purposes and commitments that advance their talent development and

creative productivity (Dai, 2010, p. 207).

According to Emery (1999a) however, purely individualistic accounts (i.e. accounts emphasising

innate human characteristics) fail to provide an adequate conceptualisation of purposeful and

ideal seeking behaviour. Moreover, as Lewin (1948), Ackoff and Emery (1972) and Emery

(1999a) have all argued, understanding such behaviour requires examination of the system-in-

environment, and furthermore that the system-in-environment be the unit of analysis.

Significant studies adopting this perspective include Trist & Bamforth (1951), Emery (1977),

Trist and Murray (1993) and Emery (1999a). A key proposition emerging from these studies is

the suggestion that, the absence or presence of higher levels of functioning, such as purposeful

and ideal seeking behaviour, is determined by the type of organisational structure. In addition

(as discussed in further detail in Section A 9.7 below), this body of literature also suggests that

two ‘genotypical’ or underlying organisational structures exist. The first ‘genotypical’

organisational structure, Design Principle 1 (Emery, 1999a), restricts behaviour to goal seeking,

whereas organisational structures based on Design Principle 2, promote purposeful and ideal

seeking behaviour (Emery, 1977; Trist & Murray, 1993; Emery, 1999a). Illustrating this point

Emery (1977) argues that:

Although a social system is a purposeful system whose members are purposeful, there

is a constant tendency toward increasing or decreasing variety in the range and level of the

behaviour of the individual members. In systems based on the first principle, the

tendency will be toward variety decreasing; the range of purposeful behaviour will be

restricted and increasingly behaviour will be at a lower level of multi- goal-seeking or

goal-seeking behaviour (Emery, 1977, p. 100).

Reinforcing this point twenty years later, Emery (1999a) makes the statement that:

In DP1 structures, the organisation uses its people as instruments, reducing their variety

and attempting to reduce them to goal seeking rather than purposeful systems....they

produce conflict and/or apathy reducing its capacity to act purposefully. With DP2, the

purposeful organisation itself becomes instrumental to the organisation’s purposes...and

providing for the higher system function of ideal seeking (Emery, 1999a, p. 16).


Accordingly, Emery (1999a) concludes that “the most powerful variable in determining whether

an organisation will become actively adaptive is its genotypical design principle” (Emery, 1999a,

p. 28) and, furthermore, that “the form of organisational or group life determines whether or

not ideal seeking behaviour emerges” (Emery, 1999a, p. 37).

Significantly, the findings above appear to be consistent with recent neurological evidence

(Rosenfield, 1988; Bolles, 1988; Edelman, 1992) indicating that higher level functioning is

enabled when there is consistency between the principles governing organisational structure and

brain structure. According to Emery (1999a), “there has long been a convergence of thought

that the human brain has a DP2 organisation” (Emery, 1999a, p. 150). Such a view also appears

to be consistent with anthropological evidence (Eisler, 1988; Brentro et al., 2009), which

suggests that a link exists between ancient cultures, organisational structures based upon the

second design principle and ideal seeking behaviour.

According to Emery (1999a), Design Principle 2 organisational structures (i.e. where a group

share responsibility for the coordination and control of tasks and operate as a functional

hierarchy) enable purposeful and ideal seeking behaviour. In Emery’s (1999a) view, there are

four ways in which Design Principle 2 (discussed further in Appendix 10) supports ideal

seeking: (a) the organisational structure becomes an instrument for the individual, (b) the

organisation becomes an ‘econiche’ which provides the necessary conditions for intrinsic

motivation, (c) the Design Principle 2 structure establishes the conditions for ecological learning

and the continued improvement of skills, and (d) finally, such structures establish the conditions

for the emergence of ‘positive affects’ (Tomkins, 1962; Emery, 1999a).

The ways in which Design Principle 2 structures operate as an instrument for individuals and

establish the conditions for intrinsic motivation are discussed in Appendices 9 and 10.

Regarding the relationship between organisational structure, ecological learning and ideal

seeking, Emery (1999a) argues that “the human perceptual system is structured so that

knowledge of the environment, or reality, is given by direct perception...external stimulation is

essential for health and adaption and, therefore, to maintain the potential for ideal seeking and

growth” (Emery, 1999a, pp. 140-141). Furthermore, illustrating the relationship between

positive affects and ideal seeking, Emery (1999a) concludes that:

Affects and ideals are innate and adaptive...ideals derive their expansive character from

the positive affects of excitement and joy...the primary motivational system is the affect

system...the ideals...are inherently related to the maximisation of positive affect...for a

motivational system to play a biologically adaptive role it must...urge the animal to


become motivated to do what it must do...and it must urge the animal to do what it can

do...Ideal seeking then appears as a way at the highest system level, of operationalizing a

fundamental capability (Emery, 1999a, p. 139).

A 9.5.4 Summary

In this section of the literature review, the role of ideal seeking, purposeful and goal setting

behaviours have been examined with respect to their contribution to the attainment of PCP.

Whilst the majority of the literature is restricted in its focus upon goal setting, the literature

review suggests that PCPers are highly purposeful individuals who are often on an endless quest.

The literature suggests that purposes emerge throughout the course of each PCPers lifetime, and

that ideal seeking among PCPers is most likely when living and working within organisational

structures which are based on Design Principle 2.

The next part of the review discusses the literature examining the role that high motivation (and

those factors which contribute to the development of such motivation) plays in producing PCP.

A 9.6 Motivation-affect


The sixth part of the review examines the role of motivation in producing PCP (including the

specific types of motivation which appear to be most significant). The review begins with an

overview of the theories of motivation, and a discussion regarding the complex nature of

motivation and affect. The review then examines two specific aspects of the motivation and

affect literatures: (a) the suggestion that PCPers are obsessive in their level of motivation, and

(b) that the foundational processes underpinning such levels of motivation are complex and

multifaceted. Regarding the latter, the review adopts an open systems conceptualisation of

motivation and discusses the compensatory mechanisms associated with early parental death

and the literature examining processes of addiction.

The study of motivation is a broad topic which overlaps with many other topics in psychology

such as, evolutionary psychology, personality, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology,

biological psychology, sociology, behavioural and organisational psychology as well as the study

of emotion and affect (Reeve 2005).


Motivation is defined as being “moved into action” (Deckers, 2005, p. 8). There is general

consensus within the literature that motivation sustains purposeful behaviour by determining its

energy or intensity, direction, type, and endurance (Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005; Dai, 2010).

Affects have an important relationship with motivation (discussed in more detail below) and are

often defined in terms of emotion. According to Reeve (2005), emotions have four dimensions:

(a) subjective (feelings), (b) biological (physiological arousal), (c) purposive (goal directed

motivational states) and (d) social (verbal and facial expression). Moreover, Reeve (2005) has

argued that “emotions are the synchronised systems that coordinate feeling, arousal, purpose

and expression so to ready ourselves to adapt successfully to life circumstances” (Reeve, 2005, p.

294). Distinguishing motivation and affect from the concepts of mood and arousal, Goldsmith

(1993) and, Reeve (2005) suggest that moods usually follow an emotional episode, are more

diffuse antecedents, offer less action specificity and possess less attention grabbing force than

affects. According to Deckers (2005), the term ‘arousal’ however, typically refers to the

mobilisation or activation of energy for a task.

A 9.6.2 Obsessive motivation

For over one hundred years, high motivation (often also described as zeal, drive and persistence)

has been associated with PCP (Galton, 1869; Jensen, Terman, & Burkes 1930; Terman & Oden,

1959; Bloom, 1985; Ceci & Liker, 1986; Feldman et al., 1994; Ericsson, 1996; Csikzentmihalyi,

1997; Amabile, 2001; Hunt, 2006; Runco, 2006; Tieso, 2007; Dai & Renzulli, 2008;. Dai, 2010).

High motivation is consistently and positively correlated with levels of deliberate practice

(Renzulli, 1986; Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Ericsson, 1996; Feltovich, Prieula & Ericsson, 2006;

Subotnik & Coleman, 1996; Dai, 2010; Winner, 1996; Gottfied & Gottfied, 2004), the

development of expertise (Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson, et al., 2006), creative achievement (Emery

1999; Runco, 2006) and eminence (Albert, 1992; Eysenck, 1995; Piirto, 1998). Summarising

these findings, Eysenck (1995) concludes that, “it is commonplace that genius is accompanied

by strong motivation” (Eysenck, 1995, p. 146).

The level of motivation displayed by PCPers is not just high; it is often regarded as a

‘compulsion’, or ‘obsession’. The term ‘obsession’ is defined as “the besetting or dominating

action or influence of a persistent feeling, idea, or the like, which a person cannot escape”

(Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 866). In contrast, ‘compulsion’ has been defined as;

“demanding attention or interest…a strong irrational impulse to carry out a given act…

addicted…compelling one to continue, especially of pleasurable and repetitive activities”

(Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, pp. 255-257).


Accordingly, Amabile (2001) finds that “the successful scientists often are not the most talented,

but the ones who are just impelled by curiosity. They’ve got to know what the answer is”

(Amabile, 2001, p.335). Similarly Dai (2010) suggests that:

Creative individuals...are fascinated, even obsessed with something that preoccupies

their mental lives. They have deeply held convictions and pursue their visions

restlessly...They are risk takers and therefore prone to failure...but they have plenty of

ego power to sustain their endeavours (Dai, 2010, p. 114).

The obsessive motivation of PCPers has been described by Simonton (2008), as the

‘workaholism’ which results from the creators love of what they do. According to Simonton

(2008), PCPers:

Show exceptional enthusiasm, energy and commitment to their chosen domain...so

strong is the emotional involvement that creators are often perceived by family and

friends as workaholics – an attribute that is not without empirical justification...creators

are extremely persistent in the face of obstacles (Simonton, 2008, p. 684).

Feldman et al. (1994) also discuss the obsession and compulsion displayed by creative

individuals. In their view, “creative achievements depend on single minded immersion in the

domain...the importance of intrinsic motivation in providing the perseverance necessary for the

pursuit of a creative career is well illustrated” (Feldman et al., 1994, pp. 141-142). In some cases

however (representing a small proportion of the literature), obsessive levels of motivation are

correlated with failure to sustain eminence due to inflexibility and dogmatism (Kuhn, 1970;

Barker, 1993; Simonton, 1999).

In several domains, motivation is regarded as being a more important explanatory factor than

ability. Motivation, is not only seen as an important variable in its own right, but also as a

foundational variable underpinning the development of learned skills and full expression of

innate abilities(Galton, 1869; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Feltovich et al., 2006; Ackerman & Beier,

2006; Dai 2010). It is for this reason that potential PCPers must develop a ‘rage to master a

domain’ Dai (2010) at a young enough age. Certain individuals possess a high level of innate

ability, but may fail, due to a lack of motivation to hone their skills, persevere in the face of

obstacles, or persist for long enough to encounter opportunities (Whitmore, 1980; Rimm, 1986,

2001; Butler-Por, 1987, 1993). In each of these situations motivation may play a ‘make or break’

role (Bloom 1985; Amabile, 2001; Ackerman & Beier, 2006; Ericsson et al. 2006; Dai, 2010).

Reviewing the importance of motivation in the development of expertise, Dai (2010) concludes


that “deliberate practice can be constrained by both internal and external factors...there is a

distinct purposeful and volitional aspect, as deliberate practice is not intrinsically enjoyable and

can easily break down without…determination” (Dai 2010, p. 73).

According to Dacey and Lennon (1998) PCPers overcome obstacles due to:

The love of ones work…having a passionate love for something is probably the key to

being courageous...in a comprehensive review of the literature Findlay and Lumsden

(1988) identify high levels of perseverance and self-discipline as two important traits. By

definition, they (creators) typically go against what everyone else is doing and must have

great powers of perseverance to continue on the path they believe to be correct (Dacey

& Lennon, 1998, p. 112).

A 9.6.3 The motivation complex

The foundations of motivation (particularly obsessive forms of motivation) are complex and in

many ways not well understood. There are various conceptions of motivation (Descarte, 1649;

Darwin, 1859; Spencer, 1899; Watson, 1914; Koffka, 1935; Hull, 1943; Kohler, 1947; Lewin,

1948; Skinner, 1953; Malsow, 1954; Festinger, 1957; Freud, 1957; White, 1959; Pavlov, 1960;

Atkinson, 1964; Vroom, 1964; de Charms, 1968; Locke, 1968; Weiner, 1972; Csikszentmihalyi,

1975; Deci, 1975; Rogers, 1980; Eysenck, 1995; Dai, 2010), however according to Deckers

(2005) and Reeve (2005) there is no agreed general theory. Regarding this state of affairs, Dai

(2010) has argued that “one thing is certain: if we refuse to get into this (understanding

motivation)...we will lose substantial explanatory power as far as human development is

concerned, especially in its culminating form-excellence” (Dai, 2010, p. 73).

According to Eysenck (1995), it is insufficient for us to simply identify motivation as an

important variable. Arguing that obsessive-compulsive motivation underpins PCP, “does not get

us very far...we know very little about the kind of motivation involved, or the way it expresses

itself, or the possibility of increasing it” (Eysenck, 1995, p. 146). Developing this point further,

Ericsson et al. (2006) concluded that we must understand how to:

Scaffold sustained, consistent, purposeful effort over very long periods of time and

despite inevitable setbacks…at this time to be one of the great puzzles to be solved in

developing a science of human excellence (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 44).

Summarising the issue, Sosniak (2006) argues that:


We do not yet seem to have research addressing how to create and maintain long term

investments in learning...Motivation undoubtedly needs to be understood as both an

individual quality and as socially promoted, embedded in tasks...and motivation

undoubtedly needs to be understood as it likely changes over time in relation to

activities and experiences...how for example, do children make the move from enjoying

playful experiences with a field to becoming more deliberate, precise, and intense in

their involvement (Sosniak, 2006, p. 297).

Table 29 outlines the milieu of factors that are thought to contribute toward the level of

motivation.

TABLE 29: FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO MOTIVATIONAL LEVEL

Universally evolved motives. (Tomkins, 1962; Csikzentmihalyi, 1975;

Emery, 1977; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991;

Emery, 1999a; Buss, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2008;

Schultheiss, 2008; Western, Gabbard &

Ortigo, 2008).

Innate predispositions, specific neural circuits

and biological setpoints.

(Tomkins, 1962; Gruber, 1981; Larsen &

Diener, 1987; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991;

LeDoux, 1992; Heller et al., 1993; Lykken &

Tellegen, 1996; Pinel, 1997; Damasio et al.,

2000; Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005; Ericsson et

al., 2006; Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010).

Variation in motivational profiles between

individuals.

(Ryan and Deci, 2008; Schultheiss, 2008).

Crystallizing experiences. (Zuckerman, 1983; Bloom, 1985; Walters &

Gardner, 1986; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst

& Guerin, 1994; Alexander, 2004; Freeman,

2004; Dai, 2010).

Temperament and personality. (Revelle, 1987; Dacey & Lennon, 1998;

Deckers 2005; John et al., 2008).

Growth needs. (Maslow, 1968).

Deficit needs. (Eysenck, 1995).

The presence or absence of intrinsic (de Charms, 1968; Deci, 1975; Hackman &


motivators. Oldham, 1980; Amabile, 1983; Emery, 1999a).

The presence or absence of extrinsic

motivators.

(Kohn, 1999).

The degree to which extrinsic motivators

compliment intrinsic motivators.

(Allport, 1937; Csikszentmihalyi &

Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Wiersma, 1992;

Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Amabile, 1996;

Runco, 2006).

Positive and negative affects. (Tomkins, 1962; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975;

Goertzel, Goertzel & Goertzel 1978;

Rothenberg, 1990; Gedo, 1996; Dacey &

Lennon, 1998; Eysenck, 1995; Runco, 2006;

Sawyer, 2006).

State and trait induced motivation. (Csikzentmihalyi, 1975; Singer, Murphey &

Tennant, 1993).

The development of quasi, fixated and

functionally autonomous motives.

(Allport, 1937; Lewin, 1948).

The effects of the entire constellation of

forces existing within the psychological force

field.

(Lewin, 1948).

Processes of addiction (Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005).

The interplay of genetics, personality, affectual

responses and psychological state and their

interaction with environmental influences.

(Posner, 1988; Revelle, 1987; Bargh, 1990;

Loehlin, 1992; Ericsson, 1996; Sosniak, 1997;

Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Deckers, 2005;

Hunt, 2006; John et al., 2008).

Out of this milieu of factors, there are two influences which are of particular relevance to the

topic of PCP: (a) the interplay of growth and deficit needs, and (b) the parallels between

addiction and obsessive motivation. The remainder of this section will therefore focus on these

two influences.

As discussed above, early parental death and childhood trauma is correlated with neurosis and

low functioning on one hand, and PCP on the other (Eysenck, 1995; Brentro et al., 2009). This

paradox is referred to as the ‘mad genius versus healthy artist debate’ (Dacey & Lennon, 1998),

and provides evidence supporting both humanistic and psychoanalytical explanations of PCP.

Reflecting the psychoanalytical perspective are studies suggesting that crisis and trauma during

early life produce compensatory motivational effects which result in the attainment of PCP


(Freud, 1895; Adler, 1925; Kris, 1952; Goertzel et al., 1978; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Piirto,

1998). For instance, according to Dacey and Lennon (1998):

In general, psychoanalytic theorists see creativity as the result of overcoming some

problem, usually one that began in childhood. The creative person is someone who has

had a traumatic experience....which he or she dealt with by allowing conscious and

unconscious ideas to mingle into an innovative resolution of the trauma. The creative

act is seen as transforming an unhealthy psychic state into a healthy one.

Psychoanalytically oriented theories basically view a person as...a reactor to his or her

life circumstances rather than an active agent… once the pain and stress of

bereavement had been mastered, a strong motivation to excel developed...creative

striving was a deeply restorative act (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, pp. 137-151).

According to Csikszentmihalyi (1997) however, the degree to which parental death and trauma

produces high or low motivation depends on the psychological ‘hardiness’ of the individual

involved and their interpretation of meaning of these events Similarly Deckers (2005) suggests

that “the hardy individual perceives himself to be in control of life’s events, is committed or

involved in daily activities, and views unexpected events... as challenging rather than aversive”

(Deckers, 2005, p. 191).

There is a general consensus within the literature however that, whilst the ‘drive’ (Freud, 1895)

resulting from compensatory effects may be necessary, it is insufficient on its own to produce

the motivation necessary for PCP (Feldman et al., 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006).

Furthermore, it is also generally accepted that neither extrinsic motivators (Wallace & Gruber,

1989; Runco, 2006), nor parental efforts to deliberately mould children into PCPers will be

successful in producing the necessary level and type of motivation (Albert, 1983; Feldman &

Goldsmith, 1991; Heller et al., 1993). According to Gedo (1996a), compensatory influences are

“ancillary and that none is sufficient in itself to sustain a commitment to the creative life”

(Gedo, 1996a, p. 9). Similarly, Diamond (1996) has argued that “creativity should never be seen

as only a by-product of personal conflicts, if this were the case all neurotics and psychotics

would be very creative- which they are not” (Diamond, 1996, p. 257).

Csikszentmihalyi (1975) and Hunt (2006) ask, why then, do individuals pursue tasks which

provide little in reward? According to Dacey and Lennon (1998) this is a puzzling question

because:


The rewards of creative work are often minimal, especially in the beginning…there is a

terrific temptation just to follow what everyone else is doing...it is quite common for

creators to work for years on the same problem before they are able to create their final

product (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 107).

In addition to being driven by compensatory effects, the PCPers obsession or compulsion

seems to be underpinned by at least three additional influences: (a) intrinsic motivation

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Amabile, 1996), (b) the amplification of affects

(Tomkins, 1962), and (c) addiction (Deckers, 2005).

Intrinsic motivation occurs when an “activity is performed because the person seemingly wants

to experience the activity for its own sake... since it produces pleasure and satisfaction from

merely being performed” (Deckers, 2005, p.276). Intrinsic motivation appears to be fuelled by

positive affects (Tomkins, 1962), often resulting from the autotelic experiences

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) generated when individuals engage in tasks they are skilled at (Allport,

1937; Holland 1997; Perkins & Ritchhart, 2004; Reeve, 2005; Hunt 2006). According to

Williams (1992), intrinsically motivated PCPers consequently display a ‘mastery orientation’ as

opposed to ‘performance orientation’. PCPers display little interest in external reward; it may

not be possible to sustain such high levels of dedication to ones work by extrinsic motivation

alone. According to Feldman et al. (1994), such individuals work assiduously at their craft for

years without recognition or reward. The apparently sudden emergence of the PCPer therefore

represents the culmination of efforts over an extended period (Getzels, 1964; Getzels &

Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Carney, 1986; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Feldman et al., 1994).

The PCPer appears then, to be ‘multimotivated’ (Maslow, 1968). The motivation which

underpins PCP, appears to be a combination of psychoanalytic drive (which may be the

consequence of early trauma), and the triggering of the more self-actualizing tendencies and

intrinsic motivations. According to Wallace and Gruber (1989) and Runco (2006), the melding

of the ‘push’ of the psychoanalytical drive, and the ‘pull’ of the intrinsic motivator, may not

however eventuate, until the occurrence of a ‘crystallising experience’. Dai (2010) has proposed

that crystallizing experiences are “those critical, sometimes life changing moments when

individuals find their lifelong passions, or hear their calling, so to speak” (Dai, 2010, p. 214).

Dacey and Lennon (1998) have suggested that when psychoanalytic and humanistic influences

are brought together by a crystallising experience, the PCP becomes motivated by “a…wish to

communicate with others, to surmount interpersonal barriers, and to bring ideas into concrete

existence” (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 147).


The combination of compensatory needs and intrinsic motivation do not, however, on their

own, account for the sheer intensity of motivation displayed by PCPers. Research reported by

Tomkins (1962), in relation to the amplification of affects, and Deckers (2005) and Reeve (2005)

regarding the processes of addiction, may however, shed light on the obsessive nature of PCPer

motivation.

Findings from the last forty years of research examining the affect system (Tomkins, 1962;

Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson & O’Connor, 1987; Lazarus, 1991; Clore, 1994; Elkman, 1994; Lerner

& Keltner, 2000; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005; Gross, 2008; Western,

Gabbard & Ortigo, 2008), indicate that the system of affects (i.e. anger, fear, disgust, sadness

and enjoyment), rather than drives (i.e. hunger, thirst, sleep, sex and pain), is the primary

motivational system, as well as being the primary system shaping cognition decision and action.

Of particular importance to PCP is the large body of literature dealing with positive affects (Isen

& Levin, 1972; Batson, Coke, Chard, Smith & Taliaferro, 1979; Levenson, 1994; Haviland &

Lelwica, 1987; Isen & Patrick, 1983; Isen & Means, 1983; Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Isen,

Daubman & Nowicki, 1987; Isen, Neidenthal & Cantor, 1992; Reeve, 2005) and the important

role that positive affects play in generating interest, approach behaviour, exploration, risk taking

and creative problem solving. For instance, according to Tomkins (1962), the positive affect of

‘interest-excitement’ “is not the only affective response to novelty...it is the only positive

affective response and therefore most suited to power creativity… the major source

of...innovation is the nature, intensity and duration of affects which motivate it” (Tomkins,

1962, pp. 358-362). Both Tomkins (1962) and Reeve (2005) suggest that ‘interest-excitement’

motivates approach and exploratory behaviour and prolongs task engagement, whereas the

affective response ‘enjoyment-joy’ replaces ‘interest-excitement’ and promotes ongoing task

persistence. Furthermore, Tomkins (1962) and Reeve (2005) both argue that ‘enjoyment-joy’

may be activated by the anticipation of what has previously given excitement, such that

individuals can enjoy excitement, and become excited by enjoyment.

Perhaps more importantly for studies dealing with PCP, is Tomkins (1962) suggestion that

because of its flexibility compared with the drive system, the affect system can be understood as

a general adaption mechanism that can amplify, inhibit or operate independently from the drive

system (Tomkins, 1962; Krapp, Hidi & Renninger, 1992; Frijda, 1994; Ryan, 1995; Emery,

1999a; Sheldon & Elliott, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001; Deckers, 2005; Reeve, 2005).

The capacity of the affect system to amplify the drive system is underpinned by the existence of

a complex array of distinct but overlapping subcortical amplifier circuits within the nervous

system which may be activated by different rates and patterns of cortical firing (Tomkins, 1962;

Lazarus, 1991; Reeve, 2005) or through physiological changes in the neuroendocrine and


autonomic systems (Gross, 2008). According to Tomkins (1962), “the drive signal must be

amplified by the affect system before it has sufficient motivational power” (Tomkins, 1962, p.

88). It may therefore be the independence and flexibility of the amplified affect system that

produces the extraordinary sustainment of effort observed in PCPers, including “extreme

monopolistic investment of unending maximal intensity...obsessive

possession...monomania…monopolistic investment… intense interest…and enjoyment”

(Tomkins, 1962, pp. 130-136).

PCP may not simply be associated with the amplification of positive affects. In Tomkins’ (1962)

view, the circularly reinforcing relationships which characterise the amplified affect system often

involve an interplay of positive and negative affects. In particular, Tomkins (1962) argues that:

The presence of the addicted object is intensely rewarding and its absence equally

punishing…the absence of the object evokes strong negative affect which grows

stronger as the object which is missed grows more and more positive, and the presence

of the object evokes stronger and stronger positive affect...further, in addiction there

are multiple positive and negative affects. The absence of the object of addiction is

capable of activating fear, distress or shame. The presence of the object of addiction

evokes excitement as well as joy (Tomkins, 1962, pp. 494-495).

Positive and negative affects may influence motivation in slightly different ways and according

to Tomkins (1962), one of the most important roles of positive affects is to moderate the

potentially destructive aspects of negative affects. Tomkins (1962) found evidence supporting

this proposition during an examination of Freud’s career. Accordingly, Tomkins (1962) states

that:

It is the combination of…negativism with the excitement of exploring unchartered

territory that Freud condenses into his image of himself...it is clear from an examination

of the life and writings of Freud that such commitment and stamina are not the simple

derivatives of purely positive affect....there are equally intense driving negative

affects...which flow together with the positive excitement and joy of creativity to

produce the unremitting pursuit of excellence which is the mark of the creator...the

intensity and depth of positive affect, buttressed by some negative affects...produce

synergistic effects in the same direction as the positive motives (Tomkins, 1962, pp.

364-365).


According to Dai (2010), similar mechanisms (i.e. amplification of positive and negative affects,

and the moderation of negative affects by positive affects) may also underpin the transition

from innate ability, through playful engagement to sustained deliberate practice and the

development of expertise (see Section A 9.3.3). Commenting on this process, Gedo (1996) has

argued that “the joy of exercising ones competence...self-esteem born of great accomplishments

irresistibly pulls persons with major talent into ceaseless exercise of their gifts” (Gedo, 1996, p.

9). Similarly Hunt (2006) proposes that:

People have knowledge bases that correspond to their interests…one would expect

differential patterns of ability to be particularly predictive of career choices of the

gifted...Talents are channelled by interests. In general, people are more interested in

things they are good at than things they find difficult. The combination of talent and

interest leads to specialised knowledge and knowledge produces expertise. Society

reacts to the combination of talent and interest by offering support, which leads to

further specialisation (Hunt, 2006, p. 34).

The proposition that competence and talent trigger an amplification of positive affects does,

however, challenge accepted wisdom that motivation necessarily leads performance. According

to Reeve (2005), it is common to find recommendations within the literature that:

The best way to increase…motivation is to increase…self-esteem...(however) there are

almost no findings that self-esteem causes anything at all. Rather, self-esteem is caused

by a whole panoply of successes and failures. What needs improving is not self-esteem

but improvement of our skills for dealing with the world... increases in achievement

produce corresponding increases in self-esteem...self-esteem reflects how life is going,

but it is not the source of motivation that allows people to make life go well (Reeve,

2005, p. 261).

Adding an important contribution to this perspective, Tomkins (1962) argues that individuals

who attempt to enhance skills, work on tasks or persist toward goals which are uninteresting or

unachievable may experience a form of ‘psychosomatic hypoglycaemic fatigue’ and therefore

find it physiologically prohibitive to maintain long term effort.


Despite the contribution that compensatory effects, intrinsic motivation, and the amplification

of affects may make toward understanding the complex of factors producing obsessive

motivation, a fuller explanation may be gained by examining the mechanisms which produce

addictive behaviour (Tomkins, 1962). Addictive behaviour (adaptive and destructive) (McArdale

et al., 1996; Adams & Kirby, 2002; Deckers, 2005) is generally explained by the interaction

between genetic predisposition, reinforcement of environmental cues, reciprocal excitement-

enjoyment relationships and dopamine withdrawal effects (Tomkins, 1962; Carmack & Martens,

1979; Dackis & Gold, 1985; Eisenberger, 1992; Volkow et al., 1993; McArdale et al., 1996;

Griffiths, 1996, 1997; Robinson & Berridge, 2000; Adams & Kirby, 2002; Deckers, 2005).

According to Deckers (2005), the process by which addiction progresses begins with:

Curiosity, peer pressure, availability...The initial experimentation occurs for various

reasons...from this point forward, however, some individuals will stop, continue to use

occasionally, or become involuntarily addicted...this may be because they are genetically

predisposed...This refers to the sensory deprivation of the brains pleasure areas because

of a low number of receptors that are sensitive to a neurotransmitter dopamine...The

shortage of dopamine receptors motivates individuals to seek out the more intense

forms of pleasure...the addicts brain becomes sensitized...which affect wanting a drug

more but not liking it more (Deckers, 2005, pp. 82-85).

According to Eysenck (1995), the genetic predisposition discussed above, may be part of a

common biological link which underpins both addictive behaviour (of interest in this section)

and the personality measure of psychoticism (which was discussed in Section A 9.4.5). In

Eysenck’s (1995) view, both phenomena occur when individuals are born with the DRD2 gene

allele and, as a consequence, possess a shortage of dopamine receptors. Eysenck (1995)

describes the relationship between these variables and PCP in the following way:

Drug addiction has been found to be strongly related to psychoticism...evidence now

exists to demonstrate that the connection with the DRD2 gene is not specific to

alcohol abuse but with drug addiction generally...the most severe substance abusers

have up to three times the likelihood of displaying DRD2 markers compared to

controls...it seems likely that high P scorers may also belong to the reward responsive

type of person…(the) genius is work addicted, and receives positive reinforcement

through his labours. The ninety nine percent perspiration characterisation of the genius

finds support in the concentration on professional activities recorded over and over


again...this addiction to creative work may be facilitated or even produced by an excess

of dopamine....increased dopamine activity in high P subjects would be indicated by a

relatively low number of post synaptic dopamine receptors...these data seem to support

the general hypothesis linking P and schizophrenia through the effects of dopamine

(Eysenck, 1995, pp. 264-265).

Moreover, Eysenck’s (1995) hypothesis is echoed by recent research which explains the general

phenomenon of addiction as a ‘reward deficiency syndrome’ (Volkow & Fowley, 2000; Downs

et al., 2013; Blum et al., 2014).

A 9.6.4 Summary

This part of the review has examined the role that motivation has in producing PCP. The

literature suggests that PCPers are obsessive about their work, and that this level of motivation

is the product of a complex range of influences including, compensatory motivational effects

resulting from early parental death or trauma, intrinsic motivation, the amplification of affects

and addictive processes underpinned by the presence of the DRD2 allele.

The following section examines the structure and functioning of the various personal and

professional organisations and groups that PCPers live and work within. The section aims to

identify the way in which different organisational structures contribute toward PCP. It is the

first section of the literature review dealing with exogenous variables.

A 9.7 Organisational structure and functioning


The seventh part of the literature review deals with organisational structure and functioning.

The review begins by defining the notion of organisational structure before examining the

limited but eclectic mixture of studies which identify characteristics of high performance teams

and high performance organisations. The review highlights several methodological limitations

associated with high performance research, and discusses the conceptual and methodological

advantages of open systems research into genotypical design principles. The section concludes

with a discussion of the relationship between organisational structure (specifically Design

Principle 2 (Emery, 1977)), and various measures of group performance and PCP.


According to Dacey and Lennon (1998), PCP does not occur in isolation. Individual PCPers

influence and are influenced by the environment and organisational structures they live and

work within (Pavlov, 1927; Watson, 1930; Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947; Lewin, 1948; Skinner,

1948; Mayo, 1949; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Asch, 1952; Bion, 1961; Emery, 1977; Davis, 1979;

Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Herzberg, 1987; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Emery, 1999a;

Patel, Arocha & Kushniruk, 2001; Ackerman & Beier, 2006; Kotler & Armstrong, 2011).

Robbins and Barnwell (1994) establish a popular definition of organisational structure. Emery

(1999a) has argued however, that an organisational structure is formed whenever two or more

individuals establish a relationship. Adopting such a definition implies that the literature

examining organisational functioning and the performance and creativity of teams (Salas, Rosen,

Burke, Goodwin & Fiore, 2006), groups (Bennis & Ward-Biederman, 1997; Sawyer, 2006) and

organisations (Kotter & Heskett, 1992) is one with a rich history spanning an eclectic range of

disciplines (Morgan, 1996; Pershing, 2006). Table 30 below provides an overview of several

disciplines which may be relevant to such a discussion.

TABLE 30: LITERATURE RELEVANT TO ORGANISATIONAL FUNCTIONING

Economics and the theory of the firm. (Moss, 1984; Porter, 1990; Spulber, 2009).

Modern portfolio management. (Reilly & Brown, 2008).

Management theory and leadership studies. (Jaques, 1951; Drucker, 1973; Kouzes &

Posner, 1990).

Organisational behaviour (human resources

management, human relations).

(Weber, 1964; Brooks, 2009; Mullins, 2004).

Politics and power. (Pfeffer, 1993).

Industrial and organisational psychology. (Aamodt, 2012).

Cultural studies. (Eisler, 1995; Schein, 1996).

Parenting and youth studies. (Brentro et al., 2009).

Organisational development. (Armstrong, 2006).

Evolutionary fitness. (Darwin, 1859).

Complexity theory. (Kauffman, 1995; Holland, 1995; Axelrod,

1997).

According to Emery (1999a), there are two genotypical organisational structures: ‘Design

Principle 1’ (as discussed in Appendix 10, this design principle is characterised by redundancy of

parts, asymmetrical dependence, variety decreasing and dependent or fight/flight group

dynamics) and ‘Design Principle 2’ (characterised by redundancy of functions, symmetrical


dependence, variety increasing and the creative working mode). Eisler (1995) has independently

identified the existence of such organisational structures within ancient civilisations, and Brentro

et al., (2009), have labelled the former ‘cultures of dominance’ and the latter ‘cultures of respect’.

A 9.7.2 High performance teams, groups and organisations

Notwithstanding the proposition outlined in Section 2.4.5 (that the PCP literature represents a

single definable field of inquiry), the literature examining the structure and functioning of expert

and creative teams is limited (Hackman, 1983; Driskell, Salas & Hogan, 1987; Gersick, 1988;

Katzenbach & Smith, 1992; Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum, 1992; Tannenbaum,

Beard & Salas, 1992; Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas & Volpe, 1995; Klimoski & Jones,

1995; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Paris, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Blendell, Henderson,

Molloy & Pascual, 2001; Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001; Raskar, van Vliet, van der Broek &

Essens, 2001; Shanahan, 2001; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In recognition of this state of play,

Sawyer (2006) has recommended that future research should seek:

To explain the creativity of complex collaborating groups, we need a scientific

perspective that allows us to understand how groups of people work together, and how

the collective actions of many people result in a final created product...Today the most

important forms of creativity in our culture ...are joint cooperative activities of complex

networks of skilled individuals...the creativity of the group as a unit can only be

explained by examining social and interactional processes...No-one can generate a

performance alone; the performers have to rely on the group and on the audience to

collectively generate the emergent performance (Sawyer, 2007, pp. 119-120).

According to Salas et al. (2006), the limited research literature in relation to group and

organisational performance and creativity is highly fragmented and requires researchers to

combine studies from various disciplines to obtain insights. More specifically Salas et al. (2006)

argue that:

The lack of understanding that exists within organisations concerning the creation and

management of expert teams poses a challenge...there have been several advances in the

study of teams within the past 25 years...however the literature often focuses on teams

as a general topic and not expert teams specifically...What has been learned about

expert team performance in the last 20 years?...the compartmentalised nature of the


research can work to obfuscate an integrated view of the findings (Salas et al., 2006, p.

440).

Furthermore, Emery (1999a) and Marchington and Wilkinson, (2005) have argued that much of

the existing research fails to utilise well defined theoretical frameworks, concepts or methods,

and is therefore lacking validity and fails to add to the accretion of knowledge. Marchington and

Wilkinson (2005) describe the problem in the following way:

There have been a significant number of studies over the last decade investigating the

links between HRM and organisational performance.... there are some doubts about the

precise sorts of HR practices that comprise the high commitment bundle, about their

supposed synergy with one another…Even if an association is found between high

commitment HRM and performance, questions remain about directions of causality

and about the processes that underpin and drive these linkages… it is still difficult to

draw generalised conclusions from these studies for a number of reasons…there is little

additive value in these and whilst statistically sophisticated, they lack theoretical rigour.

Despite a plea for more theoretical models to underpin empirical research, this has not

prevented even more of these sorts of studies taking place (Marchington & Wilkinson,

2005, pp. 71-72).

Table 31 provides an overview of the wide variety of characteristics identified within the

literature that are associated with high performance teams, groups and organisations.

TABLE 31: CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH PERFORMING GROUPS

Highly skilled individual members. (Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum,

1992).

The right people. (Collins & Porras, 2000; Collins, 2001).

High levels of role clarity. (LaPorte & Consolini, 1991; Hopkins, 2000).

Taskwork. (Morgan, Glickman, Woodard, Blaiwes &

Salas, 1986; Gersick 1988; Kozlowski, Gully &

Salas, 1996).

Coordination of work through shared mental

models and anticipation of the needs of

(Rouse & Morris, 1986; Orasanu, 1990;

Cannon-Bowen, Salas & Converse, 1993;


others. Klimoski & Mohammad,1994; Entin &

Serfaty, 1999; Campbell & Kuncle, 2001; Salas

et al., 2006).

Coordination of individual expertise and effort

through shared knowledge of rules and group

practice.

(Hatana & Inagaki, 1986; Helsen et al., 1998;

Schaafstal, Johnston & Oeser, 2001; Ward et

al., 2004; Ericsson et al., 2006; Salas et al.,

2006; Sawyer, 2006).

Disciplined thought and action. (Collins, 2001).

Effective execution. (Hubbard, Samuel, Heap & Cocks, 2002).

Bias for action. (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

A belief in risk taking. (Edmondson, 1999).

Jointly shared responsibility for outcomes. (Emery, 1999a).

Strong sense of identity. (Castka, Bamer, Sharp & Belohoubek, 2001;

Edmondson, 2003).

Pursuit of the hedgehog principle. (Collins, 2001).

Ability to stick to the knitting. (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Focus on urgent, important and clear goals,

which are achievable in a short timeframe with

existing resources and accountabilities.

(Schaffer, 1990).

Mutual support and respect. (Emery, 1999a).

Low levels of fear and high levels of trust and

psychological safety.

(Hopkins, 2000; Edmondson, 1999; 2003).

Sharing of information and ability to make

satisficing decisions in a timely manner.

(Salas et al., 2006).

Ability to self-diagnose and self-correct and

compensate for other team members.

(Smith-Jentsch, Zeising, Action & McPherson,

1998; Edmondson et al., 2001; Kayes, 2004).

Ability to dynamically set goals. (Salas et al., 2006).

Remaining close to the customer. (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Self-organising roles and responsibilities. (LaPorte & Consolini, 1991).

Optimal reallocation of workload to meet

novel demands.

(Schaafstal et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2006).

Teamwork. (Morgan et al., 1986; Kozlowski et al., 1996).

Shared leadership. (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Salas et al., 2006).

Minimisation of power differences. (Edmondson, 2003).

Ability to hold crucial conversations. (Patterson, Grenny, McMilan & Switzler,

2002; Edmondson, 2003).

Effective functioning under highly stressful (Salas et al., 2006).


and ambiguous conditions.

High levels of mindfulness and anticipation. (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

High levels of group efficacy. (Bandura, 1986; Zaccaro et al., 1995; Bennis &

Ward-Biederman, 1997).

Adaptive cultures. (Kotter and Heskett, 1992).

Optimal experiences. (Csikzentmihalyi, 1975, 1990; Williams, 1992;

Jackson, 1993, 1995; Singer et al., 1993).

As discussed above, the literature examining the structure and functioning of creative teams,

groups and organisations is limited. The literature suggests that the characteristics of high

performing and creative teams, groups and organisations share similarities and differences.

Table 32 provides an overview of the characteristics identified within the literature that are

associated with creative teams, groups and organisations.

TABLE 32: CHARACTERISTICS OF CREATIVE GROUPS

Heterogeneous skills, relatively small group

size and balance between competition and

cooperation.

(Hudson, 2001; Kelly, Littman & Peters, 2001;

Sawyer, 2006; Runco, 2006; Brown, 2009).

Intrinsic motivation, expectation of creative

work, clear and specific problems, open

instructions and few guidelines, optimally

challenging work, clear accountability,

autonomy, freedom and independence,

avoidance of premature closure during

decision making, optimal workloads, sufficient

time and resources, trust, openness to new

ideas, exposure to unusual viewpoints,

encouragement of risk taking, open

communication and absence of organisational

impediments such as fear and evaluation.

(Rogers, 1954; Amabile, 1996; Barron et al.,

1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Hudson, 2001;

Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006).

Empathic observation, ignoring customers,

rapid prototyping, multidisciplinary teamwork

and collaboration.

(Brown, 2009).

Freshness, greenhousing, realness,

momentum, signalling and courage.

(Allan et al., 2002).

A flow of ideas, an organising principle, (Hudson, 2001).


presence of idea leaders, a collective ideas

mindset, operation at the edge of chaos.

A 9.7.3 Design principles and PCP

A variety of theoretical frameworks have been used to account for the functioning and

effectiveness of groups since the early 1950’s (Jaques, 1951; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Tuckman,

1965; Sandberg, 1995). Open Systems Theory (OST) (Emery, 1999a) is one body of work that

appears to have maintained a consistent and rigorous application of its theoretical framework

and methodological approach when examining the structure, functioning and effectiveness of

individuals, groups and organisations. Open Systems Theory (OST) has not, however, been used

to conduct detailed studies specifically in relation to PCP, nor have longitudinal OST studies (as

recommended by Terman and Oden (1947, 1959) and Ericsson et al. (2006)), been conducted to

examine the relationship between organisational design principles (see Appendix 10) and PCP.

The section below, therefore discusses the OST research that is available, and summarises

preliminary findings regarding the relationship between each Design Principle and PCP.

There is general consensus (Jaques, 1951; Weber, 1964; Eisler, 1988; Hudson, 2001; Brentro et

al., 2009), that the vast majority of social institutions (including schools and workplaces) operate

using a hierarchy, military model, or culture of dominance. According to Emery (1977) and

Emery (1999a), the genotypical organisational structure which underpins this state of affairs is

founded upon Design Principle 1 (DP1) (see Appendix 10 for detailed discussion). Emery

(1977), Emery and Emery (1993) and Emery (1999a) have identified Design Principle 2 (DP2)

(possessing distinctly different characteristics) as a second genotypical organisational structure.

Findings from the Open Systems Theory (OST) literature (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939; Trist

& Bamforth, 1951; Emery, 1977; Trist & Murray, 1993; Emery, 1999a) indicate that

organisational structures based upon Design Principle 2 consistently outperform those based

upon Design Principle 1 across a broad range of performance, creativity and human dynamics

criteria. Similar findings from non OST studies have been reported in business, educational and

community settings (Adorno, 1950; Dacey & Ripple, 1969; Berggren, 1992; Torrence, 1994a;

Amabile, 1996; Gardner, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Hudson, 2001; Runco, 2006). For

instance, according to Robbins and Barnwell (1994), the organisational behaviour literature

indicates a positive relationship between ‘organic’ structures and performance in turbulent

environmental conditions, and also between ‘formal’ or ‘bureaucratic’ structures and

performance in stable environmental conditions. In a study comparing lean and post lean

integrated team based methods of car manufacturing, Berggren (1992) also concluded that


elements of the latter model should be incorporated into existing car manufacturing techniques

to enhance performance outcomes. The entrepreneurship literature provides mixed evidence

regarding the usage of Design Principle 1 and Design Principle 2 structures (Sexton & Smilor,

1986; Neff & Citrin, 2001). According to Gerber (1999), it is the overreliance upon Design

Principle 1 structures and the failure to establish other appropriate business management

mechanisms, which underpin the failure of many entrepreneurial efforts. In contrast, Kotter and

Heskett’s (1992) study of corporate culture and performance found that organisations which are

characterised by flexibility, risk taking, trust, candour, mutual support, shared enthusiasm and

proactive behaviour, possess ‘adaptive cultures’, and that these cultures:

outperformed firms that did not… the former increased revenues by an average of 682

percent versus 166 percent for the latter, expanded their workforces by 282 percent

versus 36 percent, grew their stock prices by 901 percent versus 74 percent, and

improved their net incomes by 756 percent versus 1 percent” (Kotter & Heskett, 1992,

p. 11).

Furthermore, in a study specifically examining the impact of organisational Design Principles on

group performance, Trist, Higgin, Murray and Pollock (1963) found that:

The (DP1) type of work organization…contains identifiable socio-psychological

features which lead to a number of substandard results…such a view could be

rigorously tested only when, for the same technology, an alternative form of work

organization (DP2) became available, with features which would lead to a prediction of

the opposite effects….our findings are that…the alternative yields the improvements

expected…of particular interest…is the ability of quite large primary work groups of

40-50 members to act as self-regulating, self-developing social organisms able to

maintain themselves in a steady state of high productivity (Trist et al., 1963, p. XI-XII).

In addition to the general finding that Design Principle 2 structures are often associated with

higher performance outcomes than Design Principle 1 structures, several studies have identified

positive correlations between the characteristic features of Design Principle 2 structures and a

range of performance measures. For instance, there is an eclectic body of literature (Lewin et al.,

1939; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Schaffer, 1990; Turner & Crawford, 1999; Stanley, 2001; Collins

& Porras, 2004; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007; McPhedran, 2010), suggesting that most individuals,

including PCPers prefer to live and work within groups where clear group accountability is


established without the use of authoritarian control. Echoing this finding, Emery (1977) and

Emery (1999a), have argued that locating the responsibility for coordination and control of

work with those who complete the work (i.e. Design Principle 2), both requires and improves

goal clarity and group discipline. Sawyer (2006) also suggests that one factor which enables jazz

musicians (who may not previously know one another) to play music is that each member

understands “the same rules about how the music was supposed to work” (Sawyer, 2006, p.

119).

This aspect of the Design Principle 2 structure (i.e. democratic control, clear rules and

accountability) is also reflected in the literature examining the relationship between parenting

style and PCP. According to Dacey and Lennon (1998), Runco (2006) and Nisbett (2009),

appositional or nurturing parenting styles which establish joint responsibility for decision

making between parent and child are most strongly related to PCP. Distinctly different results

are associated with authoritarian, authoritative and permissive parenting styles (Baumrind, 1989;

Dacey & Packer, 1992; Dacey & Lennon, 1998). Furthermore, several studies examining the

marriages of PCPers (Hill, 1928; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Stanley, 2001) also suggest that PCPer

marriages are based on democratic control and a hierarchy of functions (Design Principle 2),

rather than a hierarchy which is based upon power (Design Principle 1).

A secondary body of literature (Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Barker, 1993; Csikzentmihalyi, 1997;

Bennis & Ward-Biederman, 1997; Runco, 2006; Hargadon, 2003), indicates that PCPers live and

work within structures which encourage creative task-focused work and positive and

collaborative working relationships. According to Amabile (1996), the appositional and

nurturing parenting styles discussed above produce moderate levels of emotional closeness, an

emphasis on values rather than rules, and encourage creative achievement in PCPers. These

findings are consistent with the positive ‘group dynamics’ (Bion, 1961; Cohen, March & Olsen,

1972; Weick, 1976; Argyris & Shon, 1996) which are characteristic of Design Principle 2

structures (Emery, 1999a). In contrast, Bion (1961) and Emery (1999a) have argued that

individuals who experience either ‘autocratic’ group leadership (i.e. Design Principle 1), or

structureless arrangements (i.e. laissez-faire) are likely to be non-task focussed, display

dependency and fight-flight behaviour and experience negative affects. Evidence for this finding

is supported by Hollingworth (1926), Terman and Oden (1947) and Dacey and Lennon (1998)

who argue that school experiences (which are predominantly based upon Design Principle 1

structures (Emery and Emery, 1993)) are, at best, a non-significant factor in eminent

achievement and, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1997) and Runco (2006), often a difficult

period for creative individuals. In addition, Emery and Emery (1993) argue that traditional

school environments (based on Design Principle 1) inhibit learning and creativity in several

ways. More generally, Dacey and Lennon (1998) have argued that “the stricter the...limits on the


child’s behaviour, the less independent exploratory behaviour the child showed...One striking

result was that both too much and too little control appeared to confine the child’s exploration”

(Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 60).

In addition to democratic control, clear goals, and working in a creative- task focused manner,

the organisational structures that PCPers live and work within appear to support effective

communication (Asch, 1952). Discussing the family setting, Hill (1928) and Stanley (2001) find

that PCPers establish productive and synergistic marriages. During an examination of

occupational functioning, Ericsson et al. (2006) observed effective communication among

expert teams and Sawyer (2006) has reported similar findings for creative groups. According to

Salas et al. (2006), high performing teams “are able to balance their communication so that team

members have the appropriate and timely information they need” (Salas et al., 2006, p. 448).

Much of the popular literature (Hill, 1928; Tuckman, 1965; Bandler and Grinder, 1983;

Patterson et al., 2002; Edmondson, 2003; Covey, 2004), argues that communication

effectiveness is underpinned by the use of human relations based strategies; however, Ackoff

and Emery (1972), Emery (1977), Trist, Emery and Murray (1997) and Emery (1999a) have each

argued that the conditions governing communication flow from the genotypical Design

Principle. Design Principle 1 is shown to produce poor communication, whereas Design

Principle 2 structures are found to produce effective communications as defined by Asch

(1952).

As discussed in Sections 2.6 and 2.8, PCPers appear to be highly and intrinsically motivated

subjectivizers. It was also suggested that motivation is the product of a complex range of

influences, both endogenous and exogenous. For instance, Dai (2010) has argued that social

support is a more important factor in the development of expertise than is biological ability. The

significant contribution made by exogenous variables to PCPer motivation is well illustrated by

the results of a study conducted by Sosniak (2006) initially designed to examine the personal

characteristics of exceptional children. Sosniak’s study found that best performers were

significantly influenced by exceptional conditions, and furthermore that these conditions “can

be summarised under the headings of opportunity to learn, authentic tasks and exceptionally

supportive social contexts” (Sosniak, 2006, p. 289). Such findings led Sosniak (2006) to conclude

that:

Talent appears to require enormously supportive social contexts...no-one develops

talent on his or her own, without the support, encouragement, advice, insight, guidance

and goodwill of many others...Communities of practice are groups of people...who

share willingness to invest time and effort...offer models for development...resources


for support...create standards for work...they defined and gave meaning...and they

supported and sustained work over the long periods necessary for the development of

talent (Sosniak, 2006, p. 289).

This finding is supported by the studies of Singer et al. (1993), Charness, Krampe and Mayr

(1996) and Tenenbaum (2001) which indicate that clubs and associations are an important causal

factor in producing world champion performers. According to Emery (1977) and Emery

(1999a) however, the conditions for motivation flow from the organisational Design Principle.

Accordingly, Emery (1977) argued that Design Principle 2 structures provide six intrinsic

motivators (elbow room, learning, variety, mutual support and respect, meaningfulness and

desirable future) for individuals who live and work within them. Illustrating the presence of

these motivators in the lives of PCPers, Ericsson et al. (2006) have suggested that their expertise

is developed by setting goals and receiving regular feedback on their work (intrinsic motivator of

learning). Amabile (1983) and Gardner (1993) have also found that PCPers (as children and

adults), experience ‘attitudes of freedom’, and ‘play’, and develop an ‘internal locus of control’

(intrinsic motivator of elbow room). Notwithstanding the literature in Section A 9.4 regarding

childhood trauma, the literature above indicates that PCPers live and work within organisational

structures which are collaborative and supportive of their goals (intrinsic motivator of mutual

support and respect). In addition therefore, to the factors outlined in Section A 9.6, the

obsessive motivation of PCPers, may be explained partly by the presence of Design Principle 2

organisational structures and the intrinsic motivators they provide.

Emery (1999a) has discussed the ‘variety enhancing’ aspect of Design Principle 2 structures, and

has suggested that such groups take responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate range of

skills are present (i.e. the appropriate redundancy of functions). Furthermore, Emery (1999a)

argues that these structures have a tendency to build:

As many skills and functions…into each person as possible and responsibility for

coordination and control is located where learning, work and planning is being

done…many years of sociotechnical research has established that democratic group

structures are the most appropriate form of organisation for learning and

development…DP2 produces psychological satisfaction…conditions for the

development of the individual…they encourage continuous learning as groups are

involved in setting goals and giving accurate, timely feedback…when a group accepts

responsibility for an outcome, it is in all of its members interests to cooperate…it is in a


group’s interest to ensure maximum learning for all…DP2 organisations are variety

increasing and attenuate error over time (Emery, 1999a, p. 108).

According to Salas et al. (2006), this characteristic of Design Principle 2 structures is reflected in

findings that high performance teams are “composed of individuals possessing the

competencies necessary...(and that) work within expert teams is allocated in a thoughtful

manner, balancing task characteristics with individual expertise as well as overall workload”

(Salas et al. 2006, p. 693). Further reinforcing the linkage between group responsibility for skill

development and PCP, Dacey and Lennon (1998) have argued that the organisational structures

that PCPers live and work within appear to provide stimulation and encourage learning and

practice. A large body of literature (Lewin, 1948; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Albert, 1992;

Gardner, 1993; Csikzentmihalyi, 1997; Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Ericsson et al., 2006; Sosniak,

2006 Piirto, 1998; Dai, 2010) also indicates that PCPer families (which as discussed above

appear to be Design Principle 2 structures) promote self-discipline, early selection of an

appropriate domain or niche, risk taking and achievement.

According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975), the characteristics associated with ‘flow’ (optimal

experience) include: clear goals which are achievable in a short timeframe, clear methods to

achieve goals, challenge matches skills, absence of distractions, and rapid feedback. The

presence of many of these characteristics in PCP has been discussed in detail above: however,

relatively few studies have specifically examined flow in PCPer populations or the relationship

between flow and Design Principle 2 structures. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) and Csikszentmihalyi

and Csikszentmihalyi (1988) have, however, recognised the distinction between the flow

experience associated with ‘everyday creativity’ and that which is associated with various types

of PCP, and Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) have discussed the flow experience of

professional athletes in sport. Importantly, Emery (1999a) and Heckman (1997) have found that

Design Principle 2 structures produce identical characteristics to those associated with flow, and

have subsequently argued that Design Principle 2 organisational structures are the genotypical

foundation which underpins flow. One can therefore hypothesise that Design Principle 2

structures may produce flow in PCPer populations.

Whilst further research examining the relationship between organisational structure and PCP is

necessary, the literature presented in this section provides preliminary indications that

organisational structures based on Design Principle 2 may make an important contribution to

the attainment of PCP.


A 9.7.4 Design Principle 2: Necessary but insufficient

The preceding sections have examined the contribution made by the ‘person’ and the

‘environment’ (discussed so far in terms of organisational structure) toward the attainment of

PCP. Gardner (1993) and Csikszentmihalyi (1997), have however, cited examples of PCP being

achieved despite the presence of unfavourable conditions. In contrast, Feldman and Goldsmith

(1991) and Heller et al. (1993) have identified cases of failure to achieve PCP despite the

presence of seemingly optimal conditions. Eysenck (1995) has reinforced these case study

findings by contrasting the J shaped distribution (found for PCP) with the normal distribution

(representing person based factors such as the intelligence quotient). Furthermore, Eysenck

(1995) has suggested that differences between the two distributions may be the result of the

interaction effects between person and environmental factors (defined here as organisational

structure and contextual influences). Moreover, taking stock of the available evidence regarding

the contribution of both ‘person’ based factors and non-person based influences (such as

organisational structure), Arieti (1976) has argued that people become geniuses because of a

juxtaposition of three factors: (a) the culture must be right, (b) the genes must be right and (c)

the interactions between the two must be right. Accordingly, Arieti (1976) concludes that, “even

when the culture is propitious the significant synthesis occurs in a very small percentage of its

people” (Arieti, 1976, p. 302).

Each of the three positions identified above (i.e. the attainment of PCP despite unfavourable

conditions, the failure to attain PCP in the presence of optimal conditions, and the requirement

for the optimal juxtaposition between several factors), suggests that: (a) there is a complex

relationship between organisational structure and PCP, and (b) Design Principle 2 structures

contribute to, yet may be unnecessary, for the attainment of PCP. Countering this interpretation

of the literature, Hill (1928) Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) and Stanley (2001) argue that in

cases where individuals have overcome unfavourable conditions, they have often been provided

with supportive organisational structures in certain aspects of their life or at critical junctures in

their life. A more appropriate preliminary hypothesis may therefore be that, just as possession of

certain personal attributes (i.e. innate ability, expertise, subjectivizing personality and an

obsessive motivational profile) are a necessary but insufficient condition for the attainment of

PCP, the presence of Design Principle 2 organisational structures (at certain junctures in the

career) may also be a necessary but insufficient condition for the attainment of PCP.

A 9.7.5 Summary

This section has reviewed the contribution of organisational structure toward the attainment of

PCP. The literature review has identified many characteristics of high performing groups and


organisations, however, these findings are fragmented and the methodological validity of several

studies has been questioned; making critical assessment of such a body of literature a difficult

task. The literature review does, however, indicate that the organisational form most associated

with measures of performance and creativity is Design Principle 2 (i.e. an organisational

structure based on a functional or skills based hierarchy rather than a supervisory or dominant

hierarchy). The degree to which the presence of such an organisational structure is necessary for

the attainment of PCP is, however, presently unclear and appears to be a topic requiring

additional research.

The following section examines the role of the context in producing PCP and is the first section

of the literature review to examine the notion of ‘environment’. This section below is, therefore,

distinct from the other literature which has reviewed in this appendix (i.e. because this literature

is confined to a discussion of the individual characteristics of the PCPer and characteristics of

the social structures in which they live and work).

A 9.8 Context and opportunity


This tenth section of the review examines the role of context in the attainment of PCP. The

review begins by discussing the ways in which contemporary studies have sought to incorporate

contextual variables along with a discussion of the Open Systems Theory conceptualisation of

the relevant environment. The review then examines the characteristics associated with creative

environments before concluding with a discussion of the role of opportunities, the matching

between affordances offered by the environment and effectivities possessed by the individual

and the degree to which PCPers display successfully intelligent behaviour.

According to Feldman et al. (1994), examination of the role of context represents a small and

slowly developing portion of the PCP literature. In Csikszentmihalyi’s (1978), view contextual

research has often been regarded as too broad and abstract when compared with ‘essentialist’

(Dai, 2010), or ‘closed system’ methods (Emery, 1999a). In an effort to distinguish the

contextual perspective from other perspectives, Vickers (1972) has argued that:

The ecologist has a characteristic viewpoint…he assumes that the regularities which

make the pattern recognisable are due to the mutual influence which each population

exercises, directly or indirectly, on all the others and all of them on their common

physical environment. This net of relations is what he needs to understand…a field in


which multiple, mutual influences are constantly at work…this is the assumption which

is slowly seeping through the consciousness of Western man, despite the resistance of a

culture drunk with the apparent success of exploitation (Vickers, 1972, p. vii).

Specifically examining creativity, from a contextual perspective, Amabile (1996) has argued that:

There are two reasons for developing a social psychology of creativity. The first

obvious reason is simply that there has previously been no such discipline. There is

little relevant theory; there is only a small research literature on the effects of specific

social and environmental influences on creativity and, more importantly, there are

virtually no experimental studies of the effects of such influences…the major emphasis

in creativity research over the past three decades has been on personality studies of

creative individuals (Amabile, 1996, pp. 3-4).

In recognition of Amabile’s (1996) point, recent PCP studies have given more serious

consideration toward such contextual factors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Simonton, 1999; Chi,

2006; Ericsson et al., 2006; Sawyer, 2006). For instance, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1997):

Personal characteristics such as personality…are at best only correlates of creativity…it

is impossible to define creativity independently of a judgement based on criteria that

change from domain to domain and across time…judgements are based on criteria that

cannot be separated from current values and norms…to study creativity by focusing on

the individual alone is like trying to understand how an apple tree produces fruit by

looking only at the tree and ignoring the sun and soil that support its life….one must

consider the entire…evolving system (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, pp. 143-147).

In addition to these contemporary PCP studies, a substantial body of literature examining the

general way in which contextual factors influence human behaviour has also developed over the

last sixty years (Lewin, 1948; Ackoff & Emery, 1972; Emery, 1999a; Gee, 2003; Evetts, Mieg &

Felt, 2006; Egan, 2009; Kotler & Armstrong, 2011).

According to Trist, Emery and Murray (1997), the study of contextual factors represents a shift

towards ‘open systems thinking’ and the adoption of a ‘socio-ecological perspective’ (Vickers,

1972). In discussing the significance of this shift, Emery (1997) argues that:


The socio-ecological perspective was announced publicly in a paper that Trist and I

published in Human Relations (1965a/Vol.III)... We found also that our conceptual

apparatus was not up to dealing with these tasks.... We gradually realized that if we were

usefully to contribute to the problems that faced the cases mentioned above we had to

extend our theoretical framework. In particular, we had to discard the assumption that

systems or individuals could not know their environments and the unipolar focus on

the system, or individual as system. In a positive sense we had to theorize about the

evolution of the environment and the consequences of this evolution for the

constituent systems (Emery, 1997, Vol III, p. XI).

More generally however, Pepper (1942) and Emery (1999a) have conceptualised the shift toward

a socio-cultural perspective, as a shift in worldview from ‘mechanism’ or ‘organicism’ toward the

worldview of ‘contextualism’. Furthermore, Emery (1999a) has argued that such a shift

incorporates Peirce’s (1986) ‘logic of relations’ and Emery’s (1977) ‘system-in-environment’ as

the unit of analysis.

According to Emery (1999a) however, the terms context, domain and environment are often ill

defined and, as discussed in Section 2.4.8, conceptual confusion is compounded when the

criteria used to assess performance or creativity are not clearly and consistently defined (Ennis,

1989; Feldman et al., 1994; Ericsson et al., 2006; Dai, 2010). Within the PCP literature, the term

‘context’ has been taken to include concepts such as ‘domain’ and ‘field’ (Gardner, 1993;

Feldman et al., 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), ‘zeitgeist’ (spirit of the times) (Boring, 1971;

Runco, 2006), the cultural and political dimensions of a particular historical-geographical setting

(Hofstede, 1991), ‘memes’ (Feldman et al., 1994), ‘taken for granted assumptions’ (Schein, 1996)

and ‘paradigms’ (Kuhn, 1970; Barker, 1993). Context is defined by the Macquarie Concise

Dictionary (2010) as “the circumstances or facts that surround a particular situation, event etc”

(Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 270) and according to Feldman and Goldsmith (1991)

the term context encompasses “at least four different time frames…the individual’s life span,

the developmental history of the field or domain; cultural and historical trends that bear on both

individuals and fields and finally, evolutionary time” (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991, p. 12).

An important development within certain sections of the PCP literature (Feldman et al., 1994;

Runco, 2006) is the conceptualisation of ‘context’ as a dynamic and active variable. According to

Feldman et al. (1994):


Rarely has culture itself been given a dynamic role…creative work is not simply the

playing out of individual drives…it all takes place in a context of already existing

circumstances, which themselves bear upon and, to a degree (but far from completely),

control the process (Feldman et al., 1994, p. 39).

Similarly, Amabile (1996) has proposed that:

We must move beyond individual psychology as we have tried to do with our recent

work…(and) we must consider the impact of social influences, not only on the

individual’s creative work but also on the ultimate acceptance and success of that

creative work (Amabile, 1996, p. 274).

In Emery’s (1999a) view however, the notion of ‘context’ discussed above, does not reflect open

systems thinking. Emery (1997) also regards Bertalanffy’s (1969) ‘General Systems Theory’ as a

closed systems view. According to Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a), the environment should

be defined in much more precise terms, and only then, can the ways in which the environment

and the PCPer actively and mutual influence each other be fully examined. Further reinforcing

this point, Emery (1977) has argued that:

To understand any human system we require some knowledge of each member of the

following set, where L indicates some potentially lawful connexion, and the suffix 1

refers to the system and the suffix 2 to the environment; L11, L12, L21, L22…L21 to

the goals and noxiants presented by the environment for the system (and these will not

be the same for different systems)…L22 refers to the causal texture of the

environment: the ways in which the parts of , and the processes of the environment

causally determine each other independently of L12…the L12 and the L21 are at least

as much determined by the character of the L22 and by the L11…I am further

contending that the L22 has been evolving in ways that significantly change what is

possible and probably in the L12’s and the L21’s (Emery, 1977, pp. 3-4).

Emery’s (1977) definition of the ‘environment’ utilises the additional concepts of, ‘causal

texture’ (Emery & Trist, 1965), ‘adaption’, ‘effectivities’ and ‘affordances’ (Gibson, 1966; Emery,

1977) and ‘directive correlation’ (Sommerhoff, 1969). According to Emery (1999a):


Adaption, cannot therefore be precisely specified, without a specification of the nature

of the environment…it is just as legitimate to inquire into an environmnent’s

appropriateness, as it is to inquire into the nature of the system’s adaptation…we are

behaving adaptively when there is perfect symmetry between the information states or

events of the environment and our psychological states, events or behaviour. The

concepts of affordance and effectivity are central. Affordances are properties of the

environment relative to a system, the acts and behaviours permitted by objects, places

and events. They define what the environment means to a perceiver, what he or she can

do with it…an affordance is therefore not a force in the field but the basis of a

potential directive correlation. The concept of effectivity…mean(s) purposeful

activities…it must be manifested in appropriate and effective actions on the

environment…they must be constrained by accurate perception of the

environment…without this focus it is possible to make beautiful plans which have no

chance of implementation (Emery, 1999a, pp. 10-13).

Emery’s (1977) conceptualisation of the environment, not only appears to address a theoretical

weakness within the contemporary PCP literature, it also appears to address the point made by

Heller et al. (1993) that an approach is needed which moves beyond examination of the relative

contribution of the person and the environment to ask more interesting questions about how

the person and environment contribute to PCP and whether identifiable patterns exist.

The remainder of this section discusses the characteristics associated with creative environments

and concludes with a discussion of the role of opportunities, the matching between affordances

and effectivities, and the degree to which PCPers display successfully intelligent behaviour. In

contrast with Section A 9.7 (which examined the role of organisational structure), the review

below examines the external environment. Throughout the remainder of this section, the terms

‘context’ and ‘environment’ are used interchangeably. Both terms will, however, refer to

Emery’s (1999a) conceptualisation of the environment.

A 9.8.2 Characteristics of creative contexts

In Section A 9.8.1, it was argued that the criteria used to select eminent and creative works may

change from one historical period to another. In addition, Albert (1992) and Sawyer (2006)


suggest that creative work tends to be clustered in both historical and geographic terms, and

Runco (2006) indicates that during these times, the presence of certain conditions may offer an

environment which is more conducive to PCP than at other times.

The purpose of this section is, therefore, to provide a review of the literature that discusses the

environmental factors most commonly associated with PCP (and therefore thought to be

characteristic of creative contexts). The review is divided into five sub sections, each of which

examines the role of environment from a different perspective. The review commences with a

discussion of those factors most commonly correlated with PCP. This is followed by a review of

the ways in which creative works emerge and evolve. The third and fourth sub sections examine

the dynamic role of the environment, and discuss the literature examining the resistance

encountered by PCPers. The review then concludes with an appraisal of the role of the zeitgeist.

According to Feldman et al. (1994), only a limited number of studies have examined the role of

the environment in relation to PCP. This contemporary literature indicates that the

environmental factors most commonly correlated with PCP include: (a) the presence of well-

developed domains, (b) war and religious turmoil, (c) political fragmentation, (d) the appearance

of significant role models and (e) high levels of military spending (Ogburn & Thomas, 1922;

Kroeber, 1944; Merton, 1961; Arieti, 1976; Harrington, 1990; Eysenck, 1995; Simonton, 1999;

Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Feldman et al., 1994; Ericsson et al., 2006; Sawyer, 2006; Runco,

2006).

There appears to be strong parallels emerging from the findings of researchers across an eclectic

range of disciplines regarding the way in which creative works emerge (Toynbee & Somervell,

1963; Vernon, 1966; Kuhn, 1970; Emery & Trist, 1972; Greiner, 1972; Granovetter, 1973;

Weick, 1976; Emery, 1977; Freeman, 1977, 1983; Van Duijn, 1983; Barker, 1993; Bak, 1996;

Schein, 1996; Utterback, 1996; Christiensen, 1997; Barnett, 1998; Tushman & O’Riley, 2002;

Hargadon, 2003). Within this literature, studies of technological innovation, and organisational

and product growth point toward the presence of a characteristic pattern of development which

is often discussed in terms of cycles interspersed with periods of transition. To shed light on the

processes which may underlie such patterns, Table 33 groups findings from this body of

literature into seven phases.

TABLE 33: PATTERNS OF CHANGE

Phase 1 An established paradigm exists. Kuhn (1970) refers to this as a period of normal

science, and Utterback (1996) describes it as a period of process innovation.


Phase 2 Significant and unresolved problems appear; established paradigms are

characterised by inertia and blindness to emerging problems as well as future

possibilities (Kuhn, 1970; De Bono, 1976; Barker, 1993). Factors contributing to

inertia and blindness include interdependency, personal investment, comfort

zones, previous success and lack of evidence or economic justification in support

of alternatives (Barker, 1993; Christiensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Riley, 2002).

Phase 3 Pioneering individuals, groups and lead users (typically ‘outsiders’ (Barker, 1993;

Utterback, 1996)) appear and propose solutions to emerging problems (Weick,

1976). According to Christiensen (1997), at this stage such solutions are

developed and tested on a small scale.

Phase 4 According to Utterback (1996), Tushman and O’Riley (2002) and Hargadon

(2003), during the early stages of product innovation there is a rapid proliferation

of potential solutions which, according to Hargadon (2003), represent novel

combinations of ideas and technologies from across various disciplines. This is

followed by a process of diffusion through ‘gatekeepers’, informal leaders and

social channels (typically from pioneers to lead users to amateurs to the general

public) (Emery & Oezer, 1958; Von Hippel, 2005). Csikzentmihalyi (1997) has

discussed this process in terms of cultural transmission and memetic replication.

Phase 5 Problems associated with the previous paradigm become insurmountable (Kuhn,

1970; Barker, 1993) as new methods reach critical mass (Tushman & O’Riley,

2002).

Phase 6 Tension and conflict exists among competing paradigms (Kuhn, 1970; Barker,

1993).

Phase 7 Old paradigms are unfrozen (Lewin, 1948) and new ‘paradigms’ (Kuhn, 1970),

‘dominant designs’ (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997, 2002), ‘disruptive technologies’

(Christiensen, 1997), ‘cultural memes’ (Csikzentmihalyi, 1997), and ‘taken for

granted assumptions’ (Schein, 1996), representing discontinuous changes

(Utterback, 1996; Hargadon, 2003), are selected (Weick, 1976), ‘refrozen’ (Lewin,

1948), as social actors learn to operate according to the new set of rules (Barker,

1993).

Similar patterns of creativity and change have been documented by Open Systems theorists and

Complexity theorists. For instance, Emery and Trist (1972) argue that there are five different

environmental ‘causal textures’ including ‘turbulent field’ environments which may be

characterised by the presence of autochthonous processes. Similarly Bak (1996), argues that

systems can reach a state of ‘self-organised criticality’ and that system growth and development

is characterised by periods of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. Table 34 below summarises several


additional patterns identified within the broader systems, chaos and complexity literature, and in

doing so, illustrates several similarities with the patterns outlined in Table 33.

TABLE 34: PATTERNS WITHIN THE CHAOS AND COMPLEXITY LITERATURE

Systems are regarded as being ‘robust’ dissipative structures’

which operate within the boundaries of ‘attractors’.

(Lorenz, 1963; Prigogine &

Nicolis, 1977; Stacey, 1996).

Systems are regarded as being open to their environment and

as a result engage in processes of co-evolution and reside on a

‘fitness landscape’.

(Axelrod, 1997; Kauffman,

1993, 1996).

During periods of change, systems and their environments are

characterised by processes of diffusion including tension,

overlapping temporal gestalten, embryos of change, processes

of concealment and parasitism, symptoms of intrusion and

mutual invasion, and experience periods of rapid and extreme

fluctuation.

(Emery & Trist, 1972;

Stacey, 1996).

Such systems are regarded as operating at the ‘edge of chaos’. (Gleick, 1987; Stacey, 1996;

Holland, 1995; Kauffman,

1996; Ball, 2006).

These systems are ‘sensitively dependent on initial conditions’

and small changes often produce large consequences. These

transitions have also been referred to as ‘tipping points’,

‘bifurcation points’, periods of ‘critical mass’, ‘non-linear

outcomes’, ‘avalanches’ and ‘autocatalytic processes’

(Gleick, 1987; Stacey, 1991;

Bak, 1996; Gladwell, 2002;

Wolfram, 2002; Mandelbrot,

1977; Mandlebrot &

Hudson, 2004; Holland,

1995; Kauffman, 1996; Ball,

2006).

Emerging systems follow a sigmoidal growth curve. (Emery & Trist, 1972;

Capra, 1992)

Periods of punctuated equilibria are believed to follow a ‘fractal

pattern’, ‘power law’ or logistic distribution

(Mandelbrot & Hudson,

2004).

Complex systems are believed therefore to be ‘self-organising’,

‘flocking’ and ‘swarming’ or ‘emergent’

(Lovelock, 1979; Holland,

1995; Kauffman, 1996; Ball,

2006).

Similar patterns to those reported in Tables 33 and 34, have also been discussed in the literature

examining the development of civilisations. According to Toynbee and Somervell (1963), the


environmental conditions which favour creativity and change occur on a cyclical basis and that

the successes and failures of one period often sow the seeds of change in subsequent periods.

Furthermore, according to Capra’s (1992) analysis of this process:

The genesis of a civilization consists of a transition from a static condition to dynamic

activity….Toynbee sees the basic pattern…as a pattern of interaction which he calls

challenge and response…The civilization continues to grow when its successful

response to the initial challenge generates cultural momentum that carries the society

beyond a state of equilibrium into an overbalance that presents itself as a fresh

challenge….the initial pattern of challenge and response is repeated in successive

phases of growth…The recurrent rhythm in cultural growth seems to…have been

observed throughout the ages…fluctuating patterns seems to be very useful for the

study of cultural evolution…An essential element in this cultural breakdown, according

to Toynbee, is a loss of flexibility. When social structures and behaviour patterns have

become so rigid that the society can no longer adapt to changing situations…it will

break down and, eventually disintegrate…Whereas growing civilizations display endless

variety and versatility, those in the process of disintegration show uniformity and lack

of inventiveness…accompanied by a general loss of harmony among its elements,

which inevitably leads to the outbreak of social discord and disruption (Capra, 1992,

pp. 7-9).

The views above also share several similarities with the findings of Lovelock (1979) regarding

the behaviour of complex ecosystems, models of population growth (Lotka, 1920; Volterra,

1931), studies examining accidents and error (Hopkins, 2000; Bak, 1996; Ball, 2006), the views

of classical and contemporary social and economic theorists (Hegel, 1816; Marx, 1867; Spencer,

1903, Keynes, 1936; Porter, 1990) and the literature discussing long wave economic theory

(Freeman, 1977, 1983; Van Duijn, 1983; Bartnett, 1998). Perhaps of most direct relevance to the

emergence of PCP, are the remarks of Marx and Engels (1848) and Schumpeter (1942)

regarding ‘gales of creative destruction’. Such views seem to resonate with the literature

discussed in Sections 2.6.3 and 2.8.2 which indicates that creative work often appears earlier

than needed (Emery & Trist, 1972) and are strongly resisted prior to acceptance (Kuhn, 1970;

Kotter, 1996; Utterback, 1996; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2002; Hargadon, 2003; Runco, 2006).

Creative contexts may therefore be best characterised as periods of instability where a few


individuals make and take opportunities in the face of resistance and successfully tip the balance

in favour of a new paradigm. Summarising this proposition, Plank (1949) argues that “a new

scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,

but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar

with it” (Plank, 1949, p. 33).

The literature referred to above assumes that PCP is the product of an individual’s attributes

and efforts and the ways in which they are either enabled by, or prevail over, the conditions of

their environment. Offering a radically different perspective, Kroeber (1944), Feldman et al.

(1994) and Runco (2006), suggest that PCP may however, be an inevitable product of the

‘zeitgeist’, or spirit of the times. According to this conceptualisation, the PCPer is regarded as a

host, channel, expression or figurehead of an underlying movement in the zeitgeist. In Runco’s

(2006) view:

It is impossible to understand their creativity without taking into account the historical

and cultural context of that time. Indeed full understanding of creative work must

always acknowledge historical and cultural contexts…Zeitgeist imposes a value system

and provides prerequisites for specific kinds of creativity…Zeitgeist only contributes so

much...extraordinary creative achievements require an extraordinary individual as

well…a new discovery seldom made until the times are ready for it…inventions (are

not therefore) inevitable…(the) Zeitgeist provides information and values, but the

prepared mind and creative individual must come along to develop the insight…chance

favours the prepared mind (Runco, 2006, pp. 214-225).

Further illustrating this point, Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) have proposed that:

The prodigy exists within sociocultural, historical and evolutionary contexts that each

affect the expression of potential…a certain type of talent may have a higher

probability of accomplishment when the spirit of the times favours that particular form,

whereas another may have an advantage when the Zeitgeist shifts to another emphasis

(Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991, p. 181).

Similarly Emery (1999) concludes that:

We greatly overrate the uniqueness of the genius and forget the extent to which genius

is a product of social need and myth: genius as a culturally defined role did not even


exist before the mid eighteenth century…Einstein’s creativity bears witness to Tomkins

thesis. The ideas were in the air...it was Einstein, from his marginal position…who had

the courage…and the stoicism and patience to wait out the years for scientific

recognition (Emery, 1999, p. 122).

Notwithstanding the contributions of the person and organisational structure outlined in

Sections 2.1 through 2.9, the literature suggests that PCP may be the result of the co-evolution

of an individual and their environment. In certain cases the individual may play a more

significant role in making, taking and diffusing opportunities. On other occasions the

environment may play a stronger role, whether that be as a result of the zeitgeist or prevailing

instability and a readiness for change. Such patterns appear to be cyclical and strong similarities

have emerged across an eclectic range of disciplines, historical periods and geographical and

cultural settings. In each case, it would appear that the individual PCPer finds a high degree of

correlation with his or her environment.

The following section therefore aims to shed further light on the ways in which individual

PCPer attributes become matched or correlated with the opportunities provided by their

environment.

A 9.8.3 Matching affordances and effectivities

Section 2.4.4 briefly discussed the concept of ‘Brunswick Symmetry’ (Brunswick, 1952) and

introduced the notion of matching between the PCPer and his or her context. Chein (1972),

Gibson (1966) and Emery (1999a) have conceptualised this process in terms of matching

‘effectivities’ with ‘affordances’ and, according to Dai (2010), any adequate understanding of

PCP must examine both the characteristics of the individual (effectivities) and the characteristics

of the environment (affordances).

There appears to be a general consensus within the literature (Neisser, 1979; Feldman &

Goldsmith, 1991; Piirto, 1998; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005; Dai, 2010) that, at any point in time,

effectivities and affordances are co-dependent and, furthermore, that they co-evolve over time.

Conceptually, the optimum match between effectivities and affordances has similarities with

Sommerhoff’s (1974) ‘directive correlation’, Darwin’s (1859) ‘evolutionary niche’, Kauffman’s

(1996) ‘peak on the fitness landscape’, Maturana and Varela’s (1980) ‘structural coupling’, Dai

and Renzulli’s (2008) ‘selective affinity’, Ackerman’s (2003a) ‘characteristic adaption’, Piirto’s

(1998) ‘environmental fit’ and Sternberg’s (1997) ‘successful intelligence’. According to Dai


(2010), “affordances and constraints amount to opportunities and demands that a particular

environment provide for people who are prepared to meet the challenges involved and reap the

benefits of the opportunity” (Dai, 2010, p. 88). Insights into the interplay between affordances

and effectivities may therefore be achieved via longitudinal examination of the contribution of

‘opportunities’ toward PCP.

According to Emery (1999a), human beings can perceive and adapt to affordances

(opportunities) from birth. During childhood, the young PCPer’s choice of domain appears to

be largely serendipitous, and strongly influenced by play activity (Sutton-Smith, 1976, 2001,

2005; Findlay & Lumsden 1988; Dai, 2010). Play activity may therefore play a crucial role in

enabling young PCPers to perceive and adapt to affordances. Slightly different patterns have,

however, been identified among childhood prodigies (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991) and savant

populations (Morelock, 1996). In many cases, PCPer play activity is encouraged by the presence

of other affordances, such as the presence of a highly stimulating environment during childhood

including access to learning materials, introduction to specialist tutors and access to interested

and influential individuals who value and encourage participation within their domain (Terman

& Oden, 1947; Mackinnon, 1978; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991;

Gardner, 1993; Eysenck, 1995; Csikzentmihalyi, 1997; Hunt, 2006; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006;

Sosniak, 2006). According to Runco (2006), PCPer access to stimulating learning environments

is associated with the ’socio economic status’ of the PCPer’s parents (typically professional or

upper middle class families). In a small number of cases parents are reported to provide

considerable financial support including the opportunity for the young PCPer to relocate to the

epicentre of their chosen domain (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).

In addition to the affordances (opportunities) provided during childhood and adolescence,

Runco (2006) and Sawyer (2006) have both discussed the role of opportunity and serendipity

throughout the course of the PCPers career. For instance, Runco (2006) suggests that “creativity

may sometimes be significantly influenced by serendipity, chance and accidents. Creative

inventions and ideas are often found by accident, or at least with some unintentionality” (Runco,

2006, p. 235). Similarly, Bandura (1982) has argued that:

Some of the most important determinants of life paths often arise through the most

trivial of circumstances. Although the separate chains of events in chance encounter

have their own causal determinants, their intersection occurs fortuitously, rather than

through deliberate plan (Bandura, 1982, p. 749).


In addition, as discussed in Section A 9.8.2, the PCPer may be strongly influenced by the

presence or absence of affordances within the prevailing zeitgeist. For instance, Sosniak (2006)

observed that:

The tasks the youth engaged in, and the materials they used to pursue their tasks, were

connected to tasks valued by significant portions of society. And youth knew these

tasks and materials were valued because they saw them being displayed by others in

their family, in their community, and in ever larger arenas (Sosniak, 2006, p. 289).

Furthermore Ericsson et al. (2006) suggest that:

Another critical factor underlying the appearance of certain forms of high achievement

is the value or importance that a particular culture assigns to that activity at a given

point in time...potential talent will not become fully recognised in a milieu that

discourages the corresponding domain of achievement (Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 327).

Optimal conditions may not, however, initially exist for full expression of PCPer potential

(Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991) (i.e. due to childhood environment, the presence of an

unfavourable zeitgeist). According to Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a), individuals are not

limited simply to adapting to the environment as given, and are capable of actively influencing

their environment. Section one of this literature review discussed this with reference to the

efforts that PCPers make to educate audiences regarding the novel aspects of their work.

Recapping on this literature, Wallace and Gruber (1989) have suggested that:

If there were no constraints, nothing would be crazy... to be effective the creator must

be in good enough touch with the norms and feelings of some others so that the

product will be one they can assimilate and enjoy. Even a person who is far ahead of

the times…When the gap between creator and others grows too great, there are

basically two main strategies available: modify the work to make it more acceptable, or

educate the potential audience so that they will be prepared for the great surprise

(Wallace & Gruber, 1989, p. 15).

It appears, therefore, that there is an emerging consensus within the literature (Hill, 1928; Kraus,

2002; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Runco, 2006; Sawyer, 2006) that PCP is the result of a

combination of intentionality and serendipity; a view that is consistent with Pasteur’s quip that

‘chance favours the prepared mind’. There appears, however, to be little direct evidence of


‘adaptive planning’ by PCPers or ‘active adaption’ to their environments (Emery, 1999a),

including the use of ‘marketing strategies’ (Kotler & Armstrong, 2011), the building of ‘social

capital’ (Putnam, Leonard & Nanetti, 1994; Nisbett, 2004; Sosniak, 2006) or utilisation of

particular strategies such as the ‘strategy of the indirect approach’ (Hart, 1946; Emery & Purser,

1996).

According to Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) and Gardner (1993), the mixture of intentionality

and serendipity results in childhood prodigies and adult ‘masters’ meshing perfectly with a

domain and prevailing tastes of the field. In contrast however, Gardner (1993) and Runco

(2006) argue that PCPers (particularly during the beginning and middle of their careers), become

‘asynchronous’ with their context and, in some cases, seek out asynchrony. For instance,

according to Gardner and Wolf (1994):

Creative individuals are marked by asynchrony not because it plagues them but rather-

and precisely - because they seek it. Perhaps their temperament is such that,

constitutionally dissatisfied with the status quo, they are perennially predisposed to up

the ante, to stir up troubles, to convert comfortable synchrony to tension producing

asynchrony (Gardner & Wolf, 1994, p. 63).

In addition however, Gardner (1993) has argued that the summit of the PCPer career is marked

by the presence of an optimal degree of asynchrony or ‘fruitful asynchrony’. According to

Gardner (1993), this fruitful meshing of effectivities and affordances:

Does not result from…perfect meshes. In using the term asynchrony, I refer to a lack

of fit, an unusual pattern, or an irregularity within the creative triangle…the talent

profile of an individual may be unusual for a domain…or an individual may find

himself or herself in tension with a field as currently constituted…there can be cases of

asynchrony that are too modest or too pronounced; neither proves productive for

creativity. An intermediate amount of tension of asynchrony, here termed fruitful

asynchrony, is desirable…the more instances of fruitful asynchrony that surround a

case, the more likely that genuinely creative work will emerge (Gardner, 1993, p. 41).

The findings appear to coincide with Sternberg’s (1997, 2007) research on ‘successful

intelligence’. According to Sternberg (1997), successfully intelligent individuals possess a

‘practical intelligence’ or ‘tacit knowledge’ of their context which is “what one needs to know in


order to work effectively in an environment that one is not explicitly taught” (Sternberg, 2007,

pp. 56-59). Conceptually, the notion of successful intelligence appears to be distinct from

traditional measures of intelligence (Binet, 1915; Cronbach, 1990) because it captures both the

active and passive forms of adaption discussed earlier by Emery (1977) and Emery (1999a). In

addition, in Sternberg’s (2007) view, “intelligence is itself a form of developing expertise - that

there is no clear-cut distinction between the two constructs” (Sternberg, 2007, pp. 56-59).

Importantly, Sternberg’s (1997, 2007) notion of successful intelligence accords with Ackoff and

Emery’s (1972) suggestion that intelligence be conceptualised in functional terms. For instance

Sternberg (2007) defines successfully intelligence in terms of:

Capitalizing on ones strengths and correcting or compensating for ones

weaknesses…through many different blending’s of skills rather than through any single

formula…Successful intelligence involves not only modifying oneself to suit the

environment (adaptation), but also modifying the environment to suit oneself (shaping),

and sometimes, finding a new environment that is a better match to one’s skills, values

or desires (selection)…success in life requires one...to analyse one’s own ideas as well as

the ideas of others, but also to generate ideas and to persuade other people of their

value (Sternberg, 2007, p. 43).

Furthermore, Sternberg (1997) argues that successfully intelligent individuals are able to:

Realise that the environment in which they find themselves may or may not enable

them to make the most of their talents. They actively seek out an environment where

they can not only do competent work, but make a difference. They create their own

opportunities rather than let their opportunities be limited by the circumstances in

which they happen to find themselves…successfully intelligent people seek to perform

in ways that not only are competent but distinguish them from ordinary performers.

They realise the gap between competence and excellence may be small, but the greatest

rewards…are for excellence (Sternberg, 1997, p. 24).

Returning to Ackoff and Emery’s (1972) functional definition:

Many behaviours seem obviously, to an observer, more intelligent, or more stupid than

others…intelligence clearly has to do with the rate at which a subject can learn…the

distinction we propose accords with the common-sense distinction between the kind of


intelligence measured by most IQ tests and creative intelligence…the second measure

incorporates aspects of environmental and self-awareness…intelligence is the

apprehension of the relevant structure of the total behavioural field (Ackoff & Emery,

1972, p. 52).

A 9.8.4 Summary

This section has reviewed the role of context in the attainment of PCP. The review suggests that

the role of context represents a small and slowly developing portion of the literature. Whilst the

literature indicates a need to conceptualise the notion of context more effectively, the emerging

literature suggests that examination of context is essential in order to obtain an adequate

understanding of PCP. The literature suggests that the role of the context may change

throughout time and that context is an active and dynamic variable influencing PCP. There

appears to be strong parallels among the findings of studies from an eclectic range of disciplines

regarding the characteristics associated with creative contexts and the way in which PCP

emerges. The literature suggests a cyclical pattern which is punctuated by periods of tension and

change. The literature also suggests that it may be as appropriate to regard PCP as the product

of the spirit of the times, as it is to regard PCP as the result of individual characteristics,

attributes and behaviours. The final section of the literature review, suggested that whilst

PCPers are often provided with opportunities during childhood and adolescence, they also make

their own opportunities; often experiencing periods of asynchrony with their domain before

employing successfully intelligent actions to establish a fruitful type of asynchrony with their

domain, and become recognised as transforming the domain.

The next section of the review examines the literature on creative processes. It includes a review

of cognitive processes and socio-ecological processes such as the allocentric perception of the

environment.

A 9.9 Creative processes


This section of the review provides an overview of the literature examining cognitive and

perceptual processes which underpin creative work. The first section of the review examines a

large body of literature dealing with the breaking of mental set, and the phenomenon of insight.


The second section of the review discusses the open systems conceptualisation of allocentric

perception and its relationship to PCP.

A 9.9.2 Extensive literature

The literature dealing with creative processes (particularly the notion of ‘insight’) reflects a wide

variety of theoretical perspectives such as psychoanalysis (Freud, 1933), associationism and

behaviourism (Watson, 1930; Skinner, 1953), cognitive developmental theory (De Bono, 1976;

Gardner, 1993; Martindale, 2006) and gestalt theory (Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947).

Table 35 below, provides an overview of the various creative processes which have been linked

with creativity.

TABLE 35: PROCESSES LINKED WITH CREATIVITY

Process Author(s)

Sublimination and catharsis. (Freud, 1933).

Behavioural conditioning, reinforcement

histories and memory traces.

(Watson, 1930; Skinner, 1948).

Cognitive mobility. (Werner, 1957).

Lateral thinking. (Debono, 1967).

Combinatory play. (Coney & Serna, 1995; Dacey & Lennon,

1998; Sawyer, 2006).

Combination, metaphor and analogy. (Gardner, 1982; Ward, Smith & Vaid, 1997).

Networks of enterprise. (Wallace & Gruber, 1989).

Blind variation and selective retention. (Campbell, 1960; Weick, 1976).

Chance permutation. (Simonton, 1988; Campbell, 1990).

Complex integration of, and oscillation

between, left and right brain processes.

(Herrmann, 1989; Dacey & Lennon, 1998)

Remote association. (Mednick, 1962).

Divergent thinking. (Sternberg, 1998; Martindale, 1999; Sawyer,

2006).

Bisociation (Koestler, 1964).

Janusian thinking. (Rothenberg, 1979).

Synectics (making the familiar strange and the

strange familiar).

(Gordon, 1961, 1972; Kogan, 1983).

Oscillation between primary and secondary (Eysenck, 1995; Runco, 2006).


modes of thought

Polymathy. (Root-Bernstein, 2009).

Rapidly accelerated thinking and unusual

modes of thought.

(Dai, 2010).

Imaginary play (Nachmanovitch, 1991; Sutton-Smith, 1976,

2001, 2005).

Cognitive play and the reworking of neural

connections.

(Findlay et al., 1988).

Subconscious incubation and schematic

comparison.

(Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Dacey & Lennon,

1998).

Openness and sideways learning. (Langer, 1997).

Flat associative hierarchies. (Sternberg, 1998; Martindale, 1999).

Strongly connected associative hierarchies. (Mednick, 1962).

Breaking mental set. (Hadamard, 1945; Boring, 1950; Medawar,

1969; Dunker, 1945).

Functional flexibility (i.e. overcoming

functional fixedness).

(Luchins & Luchins, 1959, 1970; Frensch &

Sternberg, 1989; Simonton, 2002).

Field independency. (Witken, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and

Karp, 1962; Guilford, 1967).

Use of common psychological processes. (Gordon, 1972).

Selective encoding. (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991)

Processes of differentiation and integration. (Angyal, 1941; Rothenberg, 1971).

Conceptual change and cognitive

restructuring.

(Lewin, 1948; Wisniewski, 1997).

Paradigm shifting. (Kuhn, 1970; Barker, 1993)

The reconfiguration of knowledge (i.e. Gestalt

processes such as figure-ground reversal).

(Von Ehrenfels, 1890; Koffka, 1935; Kohler,

1947).

Preparation, incubation, illumination, insight,

verification and recursion.

(Wallas, 1926; Feldman et al., 1994).

Mindfulness and autopoiesis. (Maturana & Varela, 1980, 1987).

According to Emery (1999a), many studies within this body of literature may either deliberately

or inadvertently portray human beings as closed systems. For instance, as discussed in Section

2.4.3, Feldman et al. (1994) have amply documented the limitations of studies adopting a

mechanistic worldview (Pepper, 1942). Furthermore, Maturana and Varela (1980; 1987) argue

that perceptual and creative processes are self-referential. Similarly, the studies of Bohm (1980),

Bak (1996), Hampden-Turner (1999) and Dimitrov (2005) identify ways in which creative


processes are cyclical and emergent and reflect the interconnectedness between individuals and

their environments. In Emery’s (2011) view, such a perspective also represents closed systems

thinking because it adopts Pepper’s (1942) worldview of ‘organicism’. A more detailed

examination of Emery’s (1999a) conceptualisation of open systems is provided in Appendix 10.

According to Feldman et al. (1994), the worldview of contextualism is under-represented within

the literature dealing with creative processes. Building on the work of Cassirer (1923) and Lewin

(1948), Emery (1993) argues that the fundamental debate rests upon the distinction between two

‘educational paradigms’. As discussed in more detail in Appendix 10, the first paradigm (learning

by abstraction) refers to a process of academic learning, where the learner memorises abstract

concepts about the world and then applies this knowledge to understand real world phenomena.

In contrast, the second paradigm (learning by extraction) refers to the process by which

individuals learn by direct observation of their environment. Recent studies of creative processes

which most closely align with this second paradigm include studies of ‘problem finding’

(Getzels, 1964; Csikzentmihalyi, 1976), studies of ‘allocentric perception’ (Emery, 1999) and

studies of ‘technology brokering’ (Hargadon, 2003). Despite these advances, it would appear

from the literature however, that little consensus exists in relation to the psychological structure

of creative insight, or the ways in which creative processes operate to produce such insights

(Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Hudson, 2001; Sawyer, 2006). Furthermore, as Tardiff and Sternberg

(1988) and Dacey and Lennon (1998) have argued, the processes generating creative insight

appear to be far more complex and cyclical than portrayed by the literature outlined in Table 35

above.

A 9.9.3 Allocentric perception

The literature reviewed below, indicates that PCPers neurologically and physiologically adapt to

their domain and develop superior pattern recognition abilities compared with novices or semi-

professionals. In addition, the literature suggests that PCPers select, shape and adapt to their

environment. Both of these open systems conceptualisations of PCP involve learning from the

environment and, according to Emery (1999), ‘ecological learning’ and the process by which

PCPers monitor and ‘extract’ information about their environment is an important aspect of the

creative process. Notwithstanding the open systems view of PCP, Schopenhauer (1883) argued

that “the man of talent is like the marksman who hits a mark the others cannot hit; the man of

genius is like the marksman who hits a mark they cannot even see” (Schopenhauer, 1883, p.158).

Similarly, Emery (1999) argues that whilst “it may take us a long time to appreciate the

creativeness of the act; to see the target that has been hit. When we do, we are left wondering

how someone could have perceived the facts that have been revealed” (Emery, 1999, p. 91).


There is a large body of literature that examines the ways in which human beings perceive, and

may be unable to perceive, certain aspects of their environment. For instance, the philosophical

work of Kant (1764) discusses the nature of reality, gestalt theorists (Koffka, 1935; Kohler,

1947) identified several principles of affecting the nature of perception, the work of Bohm

(1980) utilises theoretical physics to offer another perspective, and the works of Maturana and

Varela (1980, 1987) examine the ways in which perception of the environment is ‘self-made’.

Another stream of literature, which is of most relevance to the discussion in this section,

discusses phenomena such as ‘paradigm blindness’ (Kuhn, 1970; Barker, 1993), ‘functionally

fixedness’ (Dacey & Lennon, 1998), ‘taken for granted assumptions’ (Ichheiser, 1949; Schein,

1996), and ‘neurological patterning’ (Schachtel, 1959; De Bono, 1976). Highlighting a key theme

emerging from this literature, Schachtel (1959) proposed that “perception and experience

themselves develop increasingly into the rubber stamps of conventional clichés. The capacity to

see and feel what is there, gives way to the tendency to see and feel what one expects”

(Schachtel, 1959, p. 288). Similarly Emery (1999), argues that in most cases individuals do “not

even bother to think unless the fact of observation is unexpected” (Emery, 1999, p. 93). De

Bono (1976) also discussed the tendency for individuals to use vertical thinking and the

limitations this places on their ability to engage in lateral thinking. Furthermore, findings have

emerged from other unrelated streams of literature that illustrate the ways in which such

perceptual difficulties may be compounded. For instance Amabile (1996) and Kohn (1999)

discuss the effects of extrinsic motivation, Section A 9.5.1 discussed the impact of over-

involvement in the pursuit of short term goals, and Emery (1993) examined the consequences

of overreliance upon abstract learning.

Consistent with the literature reviewed in Section A 9.6.2, Emery (1999) has argued that

individuals possessing high levels of motivation and expertise who engage in ‘autocentric

perception’ (defined below) may become ‘masters’ (Gardner, 1993), or men of ‘talent’

(Schachtel, 1959), but are unlikely to produce the type of creative work associated with PCP.

Bohm and Peat (1989) foreshadowed Emery’s (1999) conceptualisation of ‘autocentric’

perception by distinguishing between the notions of intellect and intelligence. Accordingly,

Bohm and Peat (1989) propose that the former reflects skill in manipulating the symbols of a

domain, whereas the latter reflects an interest in directly perceiving those aspects of a domain

which are known and unknown. According to Emery (1999), the distinction between

‘autocentric’ perception and the alternative concept of ‘allocentric’ perception is best illustrated

by contrasting the approaches of two scientists (Delbruck and McClintock). Utilising the

‘autocentric’ approach:

Delbruck had started out with the assumption that the gene was the ultimate unit of

life. Context was irrelevant as the knowledge he sought was to be found in the gene


itself…he created a social climate that was inimical to developments that differed from

his presumptions…Delbruck was impatient and dismissive of what appeared to him to

be accidental or exceptional phenomena. He was trying to find all the superficial

differences, those commonalities, or similarities, that would identify the essence of the

object (Emery, 1999, pp. 95-98).

In contrast, allocentric perception (as adopted by McClintock) involves being:

Intensely preoccupied with the object in its natural context; not disturbed by practical

concern with looking for what is useful nor bounded by preconceptions of what should

be… closer and closer study of the problem in its context…allowing the reality that

unfolds with closer inspection to guide one to its roots in a more general and basic

problem (Emery, 1999, pp. 92-94).

Summarising the distinction between the two scientists, Emery (1999) argues that the

comparison of McClintock’s scientific career provides a stark contrast:

She painstakingly established the cues to be found under the microscope…rare events

were treated as a challenge, not annoying exceptions…for McClintock, ‘seeing’ was at

the centre of her scientific experience…McClintock’s unit of study was always the gene

within the chromosome…she was careful to control and observe the context as she

was to observe expressions of genes… the difference between Delbruck’s talent and

McClintock’s genius arose…for the two reasons that always underlie the difference

between mere talent and genius…McClintock was naïve enough to look for the

universal in the particular…the difference between their perceptual activities was what

Schachtel (1959) has described, at length, as the difference between allocentric and

autocentric perception (Emery, 1999, pp. 97-100).

The studies of Schachtel (1959) and Emery (1999) illustrate at least nine features which may be

characteristic of PCPer perception. Consistent with the literature outlined in Section A 9.6.3 and

the findings of Tomkins (1962), allocentric perception seems to be associated with positive

affects and a perpetuated motive to understand how some part of the world operates. As

discussed in more detail in Appendix 10, and also by Bohm (1996) and Emery (1999a), PCPers


prefer ecological rather than abstract learning. The former uses the extraction of information

about things or events in their natural environment; the latter uses the manipulation of symbol

systems. Echoing the views of De Bono (1976), Gardner (1993) and Dacey and Lennon (1998),

Schachtel (1959) and Emery (1999) argue that PCPer perception of the environment is

analogous to the playfulness and openness of a young child, welcoming and understanding

contradictory information and iteratively testing ideas about how the world works. Consistent

with the literature reviewed in Section A 9.3.2 and the work of Dacey and Lennon (1998),

PCPers appear to perceive the whole situation rather than a group of uncoordinated details.

Ultimately, as Hartman (1974) and Johnson-Laird (1987) and the literature in Section A 9.3.2

have indicated is possible, PCPer allocentric perception of the environment may result in

knowledge which is configured in a specific form. Consistent with the views of Bohm (1996),

such an approach may give rise to the perception of a genuinely new order of ‘similar

differences’ or, as proposed by Cassirer (1923) and Emery (1999a), the identification of

‘genotypical’ or ‘serial-genetic orders’.

Summarising several of these characteristic features, Emery (1999) argues that:

In autocentric perception the perceiving has a means ends relation to the current

purposes of the person. Once that purpose is served there is no motivation to perceive

further…it remains an intention to perceive only what is predefined to be relevant to

ones purposes and has no more relevance…in allocentric perception the act of

perceiving is seen as a condition for subsequently perceiving more clearly and seeing

more…we find a concern with perceiving more of some thing or event…if for some

reason, the individual has a recurrent and significant need to better understand some set

of things or events then perception of them can become a perpetuated motive, an

addiction. Each act of perception is rewarding in that it yields…greater clarity…to see

what makes the thing tick…the perceiver is open to whatever the thing or event

reveals….guided by the object, not some extraneous need or purpose of the

viewer…the concept of perpetuated motive is a testable hypothesis about the

difference between allocentric and autocentric perception (Emery, 1999, pp. 107-109).


A 9.9.4 Summary

This section has examined two aspects of the creative processes which underpin creative work.

There is a large body of literature devoted to understanding the phenomenon of insight,

however there is little consensus about the way in which creative discoveries occur. In addition,

the review provided an overview of the open systems literature linking allocentric perception

with PCP. The literature review suggests that the open systems conceptualisation of allocentric

perception may provide a fruitful future approach for researchers examining PCP. This literature

indicates that PCPers engage in allocentric perception involving intensive observation of objects

in their natural context and an intrinsic interest in uncovering underlying phenomenon.

A 9.10 Confluence


This section provides an overview of the literature examining PCP from a confluence

perspective. The confluence literature suggests that PCP is the result of a constellation or

configuration of several variables. Given the limited number of studies specifically examining

confluence and PCP (Runco, 2006), the review is limited to three topics. The review begins with

an historical overview of the confluence perspective and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses

of the confluence perspective with more traditional positivist studies. The review then discusses

findings from studies which provide a descriptive confluence account of PCP. Finally, the

review examines the limited number of studies (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Feldman et al., 1994;

Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Emery, 1999) that have sought to provide an explanatory confluence

account of PCP. This section will be followed by a review of the related but distinct Open

Systems Theory literature in Appendix 10.

Confluence models emerged with the maturing of the systems and ecological perspectives, and

the growing body of literature suggesting that positivist and reductionist research (Silverman,

2001) is often unable to provide an adequate explanation for complex phenomena (Engel, 1977;

Capra, 1992; Feldman et al., 1994; Runco, 2006). Important precursors to the development of

the confluence perspective included Gestalt theory (Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947), Field theory

(Lewin, 1936, 1948), General Systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969), the theory of dissipative

structures (Prigogine & Nicolis, 1977), Open Systems theory (Emery & Trist, 1965; Emery,

1977; Emery, 1999a) and other open systems theories (Pondy & Mitroff, 1979), the socio-

ecological perspective (Vickers, 1968; Emery & Trist, 1965; Wilson, 1975), the bio-psycho-social

perspective (Engel, 1977; Dacey & Lennon, 1998), Chaos and Complexity theories (Mandebrot,


1977; Lovelock, 1979; Gleick, 1988; Stacey, 1991; Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1996; Bak, 1999;

Wolfram, 2002) and other self-organising systems theories (Maturana & Varela, 1980).

Feldman and Goldsmith (1991) were among the first researchers to utilise the concept of

‘coincidence’ as an organising theme in the study of child prodigies, whereas Csikszentmihalyi

(1997) provided the first studies examining creative achievement in terms of a ‘convergence’.

Ackerman and Beier (2006) and Sosniak, (2006) have utilised the term ‘confluence’ to conduct

research into expertise and Runco (2006) has conceptualised PCP as both a ‘complex’, a

‘syndrome’ and a ‘confluence’ of variables. Complexity theory, General System’s theory and

Open Systems theory have also been used to examine a wide variety of social phenomena

including aspects of PCP (Stacey, 1996; Emery, 1999; Marion, 1999; Montuori & Purser, 1999;

Dimitrov, 2005; Ball, 2006; Kuhn, 2009).

Whilst significant differences exist between these perspectives, common to all is the

identification of ‘systemic’ patterns. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines ‘confluence’ as

flowing or running together, blending into one…one of two or more confluent streams”

(Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 2010, p. 262). Each of the perspectives above considers the

dynamic and reciprocal interaction within and between ‘evolving systems’ and their ‘evolving

environments’ (Emery & Trist, 1972; Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Wallace & Gruber, 1989;

Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010). Each perspective also seems to view PCP as a

phenomenon of low probability, which results from the fortuitous occurrence of a number of

variables in terms of time, place and sequence (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Albert, 1992;

Emery, 1999; Runco, 2006). Notwithstanding this, there appears to be much less consensus as

to which factors must coincide, or the pattern in which these factors must come together, to

produce PCP (Feldman et al., 1994; Eysenck, 1995; Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010). Moreover, there

appears to have been limited examination of the bi-directionality of the variables involved

(Gottlieb, 1998; Plomin et al., 2003; Gagne, 2005; Dai, 2010). Exceptions to this include Findlay

et al. (1988) and Dacey and Lennon (1998).

For the purposes of this review, the literature in relation to the confluence perspective can be

separated into two distinct streams. The first stream provides a descriptive account of PCP. The

second stream includes a small number of studies that have attempted to develop explanatory

models of PCP.

A 9.10.2 Descriptive studies

An important theme to emerge from descriptive studies of PCP is ‘rarity’. In Feldman’s and

Goldsmith’s (1991) view, the life of the PCPer is analogous to a game of snakes and ladders or a


jigsaw puzzle, where pieces in the game change continually. PCP is thought to arise in cases

where a rare combination of puzzle pieces fit together. In Feldman and Goldsmith’s (1991) view

this depiction means that, “one thing is for sure…(there is a) low probability that any single

person will manage to make optimal use of his or her talent” (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991, p.

209). For Arieti (1976), “people become geniuses because of a juxtaposition of three factors: the

culture is right, the genes are right, the interactions are right...even when a culture is propitious

the significant synthesis occurs in a very small percentage of its people” (Arieti, 1976, p. 302).

Consistent with these views, Tomkins (1962) also concluded that:

Radical intellectual creativity is as difficult as it is rare. Why does a Newton, a Darwin, a

Marx, an Einstein or a Freud appear so infrequently...it is the same reason that ten

tosses of a coin only rarely come up ten heads...it is rather the conjoint appearance of a

set of heads that is the rare event...it is the conjoint presence of a set of characteristics,

each of which is somewhat infrequent, which constitutes the rare phenomenon which

issues in the seminal ideas which transform man’s modes of thought (Tomkins, 1962, p.

362).

Examining the issue of rarity from a different perspective, Eysenck (1995) contrasts phenomena

such as intelligence, which follow a normal distribution, with phenomena such as PCP, which

follow a J shaped distribution. Accordingly, Eysenck (1995) argues that possession of specific

traits, such as intelligence:

Does not guarantee creative achievement. Trait creativity may be a necessary

component of such achievement, but many other conditions must be fulfilled, many

other traits added (ego strength), many abilities and behaviours added (e.g. IQ,

persistence), and many socio-cultural variables present, before high creative

achievement becomes probable. Genius is characterised by a very rare combination of

gifts, and these gifts function synergistically...Hence the mostly normally distributed

conditions for supreme achievement interact in such a manner as to produce a J-shaped

distribution, with huge numbers of non- or poor achievers, a small number of high

achievers and the isolated genius at the top. This in very rough outline, is the theory

here put forward...we can safely say that the theory possesses some scientific credentials

(Eysenck, 1995, p. 280).


The confluence of so many variables typically requires examination of the ‘total dynamic

situation’ (Lewin, 1948; Dai & Renzulli, 2008; Dai, 2010). Lewin (1948) pioneered the

introduction of field theoretical methods suitable for such a task. More recently, the ‘chaos’ and

‘complexity’ literature’ (Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1996; Stacey, 1996; Richards, 1996; Bak, 1999;

Marion, 1999; Montuori & Purser, 1999; Wolfram, 2002; Runco, 2006; Dai, 2010) has

introduced an alternative perspective for examining such phenomena, including the concepts

‘order from chaos’, ‘fitness landscapes’, ‘autocatalysis’, ‘bootstrapping’, ‘self-organised criticality’,

‘punctuated equilibrium’, ‘bifurcation’, ‘attractors’ and the notion of ‘non-linear outcomes’. For

instance, Marion (1999) argues that:

Individuals (such as Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther King, and Henry Ford) may be

credited with the emergence of new order, but their achievements are possible only

within the context of the correlated, autocatalytic dynamics of a system of actors…The

individual within a chaotic system (Marion, 1999, p. xiv).

Viewed in terms of complexity theory, PCP may therefore be seen as an inevitable phenomenon

where an ‘avalanche’ (Bak, 1999) of events leads to an individual securing an evolutionary niche

or peak on a fitness landscape. Ongoing ‘co-evolutionary’ dynamics suggest, however, that PCP

is a temporary phenomenon whereby one PCPer is inevitably replaced by another as the peak of

the fitness landscape. According to Kauffman (1996):

Fitness landscapes…peaks represent high fitness and populations wander under the

drives of mutation, selection and random drift across the landscape seeking peaks…the

idea of fitness peaks applies at many levels…fitness peaks can also refer to the fitness

of the whole organism…higher on the landscape…in co-evolving systems, each partner

clambers up its fitness landscape toward fitness peaks, even as the landscape is

constantly deformed by the adaptive moves of its co-evolutionary partners… each is

eventually driven to extinction, despite its own best efforts, by the collective behaviour

of the system as a whole (Kauffman, 1996, pp. 26-27).

Echoing Kauffman’s (1996) view, Bak (1999) suggests that:

Self-organised critical systems evolve to the complex critical state without interference

from any outside agent…the canonical example of SOC (self-organised criticality)

is…punctuated equilibrium…where periods of stasis are interrupted by

intermittent…avalanches…we must accept instability and catastrophes as


inevitable….Large catastrophic events occur as a consequence of the same dynamics

that produces small ordinary everyday events (Bak, 1999, pp. 31-32).

Importantly, Runco (2006) argues that usage of Chaos and Complexity theory may be a fruitful

perspective for future PCP research. In Runco’s view (2006):

Chaos theory…has shown its utility for creative studies…not just a description of static

states…the disorderly behaviour of simple systems acted as a creative

process…McCarthy (1993) and Goswami (1995)…have presented theories of creativity

that draw directly from quantum and indeterminacy theory. Zausner (1998) drew

extensively from nonlinear theories in her work on creativity….Bohm and Peat (1987)

also used quantum theory…Richards (1997) extended chaos theory such that the

concept of strange attractors could help explain…creative works (Runco, 2006, p. 393).

Similarly, Stacey (1999) has argued that:

Creativity should be understood as a cyclical, cybergenetic phenomenon…that creative

people have the capacity to flexibly alternate between extreme and opposite phases

from order into chaos…creativity as an emergent property of the organisational system

as a whole…given that organisations are constituted by complex non-linear feedback

components, it is the system as a whole that is creative (Stacey, 1999, pp. 6-7).

According to Emery (2011), despite its value, the chaos and complexity literature suffers from a

number of limitations. Both Trist, Emery and Murray (1997) and Findlay and Lumsden (1998)

acknowledge the difficulties encountered by any framework attempting to combine unrelated

concepts and qualitatively different variables. For Trist, Emery and Murray (1997) this

represents the prime difficulty:

A different logic is required. The system and its environment have their own identities

but are mutually determinative and hence are changing each other's identity. The facts

of this change, and the direction of change, are critical to the course of their

coevolution…A concrete logic is required (Trist et al., 1997, p. 1).

Consistent with the literature reviewed in Section 2.4.8, Feldman et al. (1994) have argued that

the chaos and complexity literature lacks the shared theoretical framework and consistent


definitions required to advance research into PCP. According to Emery (2011) however, the

difficulties in utilising chaos and complexity theory for the advancement of PCP research reside

not only in its underpinning assumptions, but also in the operationalisation of concepts and

methodological application. Accordingly, Emery’s (2011) critique of the chaos and complexity

perspective suggests that in order:

To derive testable propositions about connectivity, we need to know who is connected

to whom and to what, in which ways and in which circumstances? Conceptualization is

devoid of any concrete relationships to real people and real organizations of any type. It

contains no functional definitions and is incapable of supporting testable

hypotheses…The lack of directed and, therefore, testable relationships between the

entities…applies to the whole integral theory ‘framework’…the CST (Chaordic Systems

Theory) literature is replete with inconsistencies (Emery, 2011, pp. 410-415).

Notwithstanding the suggestion above, that theoretical frameworks capable of dealing with the

confluence of several variables are needed for the advancement of PCP research, Emery’s

(2011) critique, argues that neither contemporary descriptive studies of PCP or PCP research

conducted using Chaos and Complexity theories are, in their current form, able to contribute to

the accretion of knowledge about PCP in the manner envisaged by Feldman et al. (1994).

A 9.10.3 Explanatory studies

The second stream of literature adopting the confluence perspective includes a small number of

studies containing explanatory models of PCP. According to Dai (2010), such studies are of

importance because:

The only way …is to resort to a systems approach...to go beyond reductionism and

holism is to figure out how these...explanatory factors might piece together the entire

puzzle...It seems that an eclectic, multifaceted view of human potential better explains

the complexity of the emergence of gifted and talented behaviours...What is needed in

the field of gifted studies are theories that are simple enough to capture the main

elements involved and complex enough to elucidate the way they work together to

produce particular developmental outcomes (Dai, 2010, pp. 143-147).


Similarly, Heller (2013) argues that models are increasingly being characterized by

“multidimensional...constructs” (Heller, 2013, p. 51) including “multi-factorized ability construct

within a network of non-cognitive (motivations, control expectations, self-concepts, etc.) and

social moderators as well as performance-related (criterion) variables” (Heller, 2013, p. 52).

Accordingly, Heller (2013) argues that systemic models of complex phenomena, such as

giftedness and PCP, effectively integrate the expertise, psychometric and other paradigms and

should be promoted.

The three studies reviewed in this section are the Domain Individual Field Interaction (DIFI)

framework (Feldman et al., 1994), the Bio-Psycho-Social model developed by Dacey and

Lennon (1998), and the Open Systems framework used by (Emery, 1999). Each of these studies

has been selected for review because of their relevance to the theory and methodology used in

this study. Whilst a more comprehensive review of this literature is outside the scope of this

thesis, Findlay and Lumsden’s (1988) systems model of creativity deserves mention as an

important precursor to the three studies outlined above. Findlay and Lumsden (1988)

introduced “the concept of a system in which the components of individual cognition, including

intelligence, learning, memory, personality and motivation interact with features of the

sociocultural environment” (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988, p. 3). Their account has been regarded

as “an early exemplar of contextualism” (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 224). Notwithstanding this,

the sheer complexity of the study produced “only one article about the model in the

psychological and social literature” (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 224). Consequently, Dai (2010)

has argued that useful explanatory models of PCP must be relatively simple and understandable.

A 9.10.4 Domain-individual-field interaction

Section 2.4 introduced the Domain-Individual-Field Interaction (DIFI) framework (Feldman et

al., 1994) and the closely related ‘evolving systems’ research established by Wallace and Gruber

(1989). According to Runco (2006), these two streams of research are among the first

contemporary studies of PCP to provide an explanatory account, and are among the first to

utilise a contextual perspective which is relatively simple and understandable. The DIFI

framework has subsequently been regarded as a new paradigm in PCP research (Feldman et al.,

1994; Runco, 2006).

Consistent with the aims of this study outlined in Section 1.4 (to identify the pattern(s) which

produce PCP), DIFI and evolving systems studies identify patterns associated with creativity

and prodigiousness. Whilst offering only a preliminary insight into configuration of influences

producing PCP, the pattern emerging from this literature suggests that, the PCPer is born into a

middle class professional family which is located away from centres of power and influence. As


a child, the PCPer discovers that he or she possess an innate talent and develops an interest in a

particular domain. As the young PCPer matures, the family provides a stimulating and

supportive environment and places emphasis upon creativity and achievement. The PCPer

appears to be relatively unaffected by his or her school environment, however, the school

environment is typically regarded as having a slightly negative impact. At a young age, the PCPer

experiences the early death of one or both parents (or some similar type of trauma). During

adolescence, the young PCPer connects with an expert master teacher or mentor, engages in a

substantial amount of deliberate practice and subsequently develops expertise in a specific

domain. The young PCPer also finds that his or her work becomes increasingly enjoyable and

experiences periods of ‘flow’ or ‘optimal experience’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1997). During late

adolescence and early adulthood, the PCPer often feels isolated or regarded as marginal, and

often moves to a location which is regarded as a centre of activity for his or her chosen domain.

As an adult, the PCPer presents as having a complex, paradoxical personality, including a

willingness to persist in the face of obstacles. Upon accumulating approximately ten years of

experience within his or her domain of expertise, the PCPer finds problems which exist within

the domain, takes time to reflect on his or her work and develops ‘networks of enterprise’. The

PCPer is subsequently regarded as asynchronous with other in the domain, and encounters

substantial resistance to his or her ideas. By early adulthood, the PCPer also appears to display

obsessive levels of motivation and is regarded by Gardner (1993) as making a ‘Faustian bargain’.

The PCPer appears to be supported by friends and colleagues, and typically marries a highly

supportive partner. Following a lengthy period of preparation, often during mid-career, the

PCPer discovers a creative insight which establishes the beginnings of his or her creative career.

This creative breakthrough often represents an opportunity which reflects a perfect match

between the PCPer’s skills and the requirements of the domain. The PCPer is subsequently

recognised within the domain for making a contribution which is both novel and appropriate.

During the late career, the PCPer continues to be engaged within the domain as valued critic,

mentor, commentator and ongoing contributor.

Notwithstanding the advances made by the DIFI (Feldman et al., 1994) and evolving systems

(Wallace & Gruber, 1989) literature, Feldman et al. (1994), Runco (2006) and Dai (2010) identify

at least four opportunities for strengthening this body of research. According to Runco (2006),

only a relatively limited number of systems based studies of PCP have been conducted and there

is, therefore, a need for a greater number of such studies. Feldman et al. (1994) have identified

that existing DIFI studies provide limited coverage of Magyari-Beck‘s (1976) research matrix,

indicating a need to conduct studies utilising a broader range of research methods examining a

broader range of PCP types. Feldman et al. (1994) and Dai (2010) have argued that the existing

literature may be extended by conducting future research which more effectively combines

qualitative and quantitative analysis and, as discussed in Section 1.2, being a relatively new body


of research, the DIFI framework and evolving systems literature may be strengthened by

incorporating the conceptual tools available within an established systems frameworks such as

‘Open Systems Theory’ (Emery, 1999a).

A 9.10.5 Bio-psycho-social studies

Following in the bio-psycho-social research tradition established by Engel (1977) (in the medical

sciences) and the application of this perspective to the study of creativity by Findlay and

Lumsden (1988) (discussed in Section A 9.10.3), Dacey and Lennon (1998) have developed a

contemporary bio-psycho-social model of creative performance which appears to extend the

DIFI and evolving systems frameworks in several ways. The literature review in this section is

therefore confined to the review of the Dacey and Lennon (1998) model.

Dacey and Lennon’s (1998) bio-psycho-social model establishes a:

Five layer system of causation in which each layer interacts with and bidirectionally

affects the other four. A sixth variable, time, runs across the other whole, such that

whatever the state of the interactions were at one time, they might well have changed at

a later time (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 224).

In comparison with the work of Findlay and Lumsden (1988), Dacey and Lennon (1998)

suggest that their model of creative performance has the advantage of incorporating a range of

contemporary studies as well as providing a more accessible structure for communicating those

patterns which may underpin creativity. In comparison with the DIFI studies (Feldman et al.,

1994), Dacey and Lennon’s (1998) model appears to address several of the issues raised by

Magyari-Beck‘s (1976) and Emery (1999a, 2011) regarding the precise specification of variables,

the combining of qualitative and quantitative methods, and incorporation of the different stages

of the creative process and the various biological, psychological and social variables which

contribute toward creative performances.

Table 36 below summarises the pattern of interaction among each of the thirty six bio-psycho-

social variables contained within the Dacey and Lennon (1998) model. The horizontal axis

describes five phases of the creative process. The vertical axis contains thirty six biological,

psychological and sociological variables identified as contributing to creative performance. The

cells within the body of Table 36 illustrate the degree to which each variable is present (high,

medium, low) at each stage of the creative process.


TABLE 36: MODEL OF CREATIVITY

Stage 1

Filter

Stage 2

Cognition I

Stage 3

Production I

Stage 4

Cognition II

Stage 5

Production II

Biological Factors

ACTH L M M H H

Bipolar activity H L L L H

CREB Protein L H M H M

Inter-hemispheric coordination L L L H H

Micro neuronal development L M M H H

Psychological Factors

Collective unconscious H L L H H

Courage L L L H H

Delay of gratification L L L H H

Ego strength L M M H H

Flexibility L M M H H

Functional freedom L L L H H

Gender role H L L H H

Perseverance L L L H H

Preference for disorder L L L M H

Regression H L L M H

Repression H L L L L

Risk taking L L L M H


Self-control L L L H H

Stimulus freedom L L M H H

Sublimination L L L M H

Tolerance for ambiguity L L M H H

Cognitive Factors

Cognitive mobility L L L M H

Convergent thinking L L L H M

Divergent thinking L H M M L

Ego control L M M H H

Ego resilience L L M M H

Field independence L L M M H

Lateral thinking L L L M H

Remote associates L M M H H

Use of metaphor L M M H H

Social Factors

Later born L L L H H

High socio-economic status L M M H H

Innovative educational

environment

L L L M M

Nurturing parenting L M M H H

Reinforcement at work L L L H H

Supportive political climate L M M H H

(Dacey & Lennon, 1998, pp. 227-242).


According to Dacey and Lennon (1998), this model provides an overview of the majority of

causal relationships contributing to creative performance. In addition, however, the authors

acknowledge that “in many cases the processes themselves and our allegations of bidirectional

causation among them are still theoretical” (Dacey & Lennon, 1998, p. 226). Literature reviews

by Runco (2006) and Sawyer (2006) suggest that bio-psycho-social models of creativity such as

the one proposed by Dacey and Lennon (1998), represent the leading edge of research into

PCP. Notwithstanding this, Dai’s (2010) critique of the literature suggests a need to combine the

benefits of bio-psychosocial models (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988; Dacey & Lennon, 1998) with

the richness and breadth of the qualitative case study research contained in DIFI studies

(Feldman et al., 1994). Furthermore, as indicated by Dacey and Lennon (1998) and Dai (2010),

much of the bio-psycho-social literature regarding PCP provides a comprehensive yet complex

account, which may benefit from simplification and the identification of key causal variables.

Moreover, as argued by Feldman et al. (1994), Runco (2006) and Dai (2010), much of the

confluence research suffers from two key limitations faced by the broader PCP literature; firstly

the lack of clear or agreed definitions of PCP, and secondly the lack of established theoretical

frameworks to inform research design, methodology and analysis.

One study which seems to address several of the limitations discussed above is the first

examination of creativity using Open Systems Theory (Emery, 1999). This study offers a

comparative analysis of the lives and works of two scientists (Barbara McClintock and Max

Delbruck). Consistent with the findings outlined in Section A 9.10.2, Emery (1999) suggests that

the appearance of PCP is highly improbable and occurs for the same reason that:

Ten tosses of a coin rarely come up heads. It is not that the appearance of the head is

infrequent. It is the conjoint presence of a set of characteristics, each of which is

somewhat infrequent, which constitutes the rare phenomenon (Emery, 1999, p. 119).

In addition however, Emery’s (1999) study identifies a pattern consisting of five dimensions to

explain this finding. The five dimensions identified are:

1. Positive affects,

2. Intensive and sustained engagement in a domain,

3. Allocentric perception,

4. A fortress mentality (i.e. the courage to tolerate failure and resistance to ones ideas,

including an ability to persist in ones work for many years),

5. An environment which is ready for creative work.

Emery’s (1999) study therefore points toward an approach which may be a fruitful future

alternative to contemporary bio-psycho-social studies of PCP. The Emery (1999) study not only


suggests that relatively simple and discernable patterns of PCP may be identified using a systems

framework, it also offers a way in which qualitative case study analysis may be combined with

quantitative methods such as causal path analysis to identify patterns among variables.

Furthermore, the Emery (1999) study appears to rely on a precise definition of creativity

(Ackoff & Emery, 1972), as well as an established theoretical framework which offers the

advantage of identifying theoretical and empirical relationships between the variables in the

framework.

A 9.10.6 Summary

In this section, the literature examining PCP from a confluence perspective has been reviewed.

The literature suggests that the confluence approach has several advantages over traditional

models of PCP. Nevertheless, the two contemporary approaches reviewed in this section (i.e.

descriptive case studies and explanatory bio-psycho-social studies) suffer from several

limitations. The descriptive case study approach provides rich insights into the lives of PCPers.

In contrast, case studies are less able to identify specific variables or the way in which such

variables may interact to produce PCP. Contemporary bio-psycho-social explanatory studies of

PCP offer the advantage of identifying specific variables and the patterns of interaction among

these variables. The usefulness of bio-psycho-social studies has been limited, however, due to

the complexity of the models involved, the lack of clear definitions of PCP and the use of

established theoretical frameworks. The literature reviewed in this section does, however,

indicate that PCP is a low probability outcome resulting from a fortuitous coincidence of

variables.

It is suggested that a fruitful future approach to the study of PCP may involve the use of a more

well established and integrated theoretical framework, as well as a methodology which combines

the benefits of descriptive qualitative studies and quantitative explanatory research. Open

Systems Theory (OST) may provide a theoretical framework and methodology which not only

meets this need, but may also address many of the limitations discussed throughout the

literature review. Appendix 10 is therefore dedicated toward a comprehensive overview of Open

Systems Theory (OST).


Appendix 10: Open Systems Theory

A 10.1 Introduction

The literature which has been examined in this appendix identifies several isolated variables

which are thought to be important contributors toward PCP. The contemporary systems

research into PCP (discussed in Section A 9.10) introduced the first efforts to establish a

comprehensive understanding of, and explanation for, PCP. As outlined in Section A 9.10, both

contemporary systems researchers and those critiquing the literature recognise that further

development is required before contemporary systems models can be regarded as providing an

adequate account of PCP, or as constituting a systematic research program. Desirable future

developments which have been identified throughout this literature review include: (a)

establishment of clear, consensually based definitions of PCP, (b) usage of established

theoretical frameworks which are capable of dealing with a confluence of variables and clearly

define each of the variables within the framework, (c) usage of both qualitative and quantitative

analysis including identification of the causal relationships between variables and the patterns

producing PCP, and (d) identification of models of PCP which are comprehensive yet simple

enough to be easily understood and have practical application.

Whilst the literature review contained in Sections 2.3 through 2.12 examined various factors

contributing toward PCP and reviewed the contemporary research on the topic, it provided only

a brief opportunity to examine the assumptions, philosophical underpinnings, conceptualisation

of variables and methodological merits of each of the systems theories which have become the

foundation of contemporary PCP research. Sections 2.3.4, 2.3.5 and 2.12 provide a rationale for

the use of the systems approach in general; however, the umbrella term ‘systems theory’ refers

to a wide range of theories which often contain substantial theoretical differences between

them. Adequate explanation of the differences between systems approaches requires more than

naming or labelling each research tradition. This section offers therefore, an opportunity to

bring these issues into greater focus by conducting an in depth examination of the various

philosophical and theoretical positions underpinning the literature reviewed so far.

Given the gaps in the literature identified above, it is incumbent upon a research study such as

this, to examine the literature and identify or otherwise propose alternatives which may shed

light on the phenomenon of interest, or offer potentially fruitful opportunities for future

research. In addition to comparing the assumptions underpinning the various systems theories,

this section introduces the theoretical framework to be used in the research study described in

Chapters 3 through 5, and discusses the ways in which this may provide a fruitful framework for


future PCP research. A review of the systems literature led the researcher to one stream of

established systems theory which has enjoyed wide application across the social sciences but has

had limited application in the study of PCP. The systems theory identified, and therefore

selected as the focus for review in this section, and for usage in this study is Emery’s (1999a)

conceptualisation of Open Systems Theory (OST).

Achieving the triad of purposes intended for this section would ordinarily require a

comprehensive review of philosophy in social science Kincaid (2012), contextualism (Pepper,

1942; Hayes, 1993; Preyer, 2005; DeRose, 2011), systems theory (Emery, 1978; Laszlo, 1996)

and Open Systems Theory (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Emery, 1977; Emery, 1993; Emery &

Emery, 1997; Trist, Emery & Murray, 1997; Emery, 1999a, 2000, 2011). Such a review is beyond

the scope of this thesis and strategic choices are therefore required regarding the literature to be

reviewed. As an alternative, this section pursues its objectives by confining the focus of the

review to an examination of the essential elements of OST (including philosophical

underpinnings, conceptualisation of variables and methodological stance), required for

comparison with the PCP literature outlined in Sections 2.1 through 2.12, introduction of the

research to be discussed in Chapters 3 through 5, and introduction of the model being proposed

as a potentially fruitful future theoretical framework for the study of PCP. It is envisaged that

narrowing the focus of this review will enable a clearer and less interrupted comparison and

introduction.

Open Systems Theory is a body of work which has gradually developed since the early 1950’s

into a coherent systems framework applicable to a wide range of phenomena. Its primary

application has been in the implementation of alternative work designs (Emery & Thorsrud,

1969), and more recently in the fields of mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton, & Trull,

2008), and climate change (Emery, 2009). The contemporary version of OST is anchored in a

long philosophical tradition which distinguishes it from both traditional positivist research and

contemporary systems research. Volumes have been dedicated toward the conceptual

development of the theory as well as empirical verification of the concepts used. The theory

offers an established range of variables including intelligence, knowledge, personality, learning,

motivation, affects, organisational structure, group dynamics, communication, adaption, types of

environment, environmental change and organisational and cultural change. As a consequence,

OST not only utilises quite precise and technical language to define concepts, it also establishes

strict methodological protocols (particularly regarding detailed specification of variables used,

delineation between the individual, system and environment, and in relation to the use of causal

path analysis as a means of identifying patterns of relationships between variables).


Given this backdrop, this section is written and structured in a specific manner. An overview of

the philosophical assumptions which distinguish OST from other theoretical frameworks is used

as an introduction. This is followed by a step-by-step review of the formal building blocks of

OST which are used as either variables or methodological tools (see Chapters 3 through 5). The

review defines each of the concepts relevant to the study, briefly compares and contrasts OST

with the frameworks and concepts identified in Sections 2.4 through 2.12, and contemplates the

ways in which OST may offer a fruitful future alternative theoretical framework for PCP

research. Importantly, the review is deliberately written such that the PCPer is conceptualised

through the lens of OST. It is believed that such an approach provides a useful means of

achieving the aims of the section, particularly in terms of introducing the theoretical framework

to be used in the research study described in Chapters 3 through 5 and integrating the section

into the surrounding thesis.

A 10.2 Locating OST within a research tradition

Emery (2000) distinguishes between two streams of knowledge that are based on two competing

views of the nature of reality, and argues that the two streams employ distinctly different

assumptions and taxonomies and therefore produce distinctly different understandings of PCP.

The differences between these two streams of knowledge have important implications for each

of the concepts discussed in this section, the methodology used for the study of PCP, and the

ways in which patterns of PCP (i.e. the central focus of this study) are conceptualised.

Table 37 summarises the key differences between these two streams of knowledge. The first

stream is referred to in Table 37 as ‘Material Universal’, and is the philosophy underpinning

OST. This stream of thought suggests that real or material objects and events exist, and seeks to

understand such events or objects in relation to their context. Emery (2000) describes this as the

philosophy of realism and argues that this stream of thought began with Plato (Mead, 1932), and

runs through the work of the philosophers (Leibnitz, 1890; Cassirer, 1923; Peirce, 1989)

physicists (Maxwell, 1888; Faraday, 1859; Wigner, 1967) and contemporary social science works

(Asch, 1952; Tomkins, 1962; Emery & Trist, 1965; Gibson, 1966; Chein, 1972; Jordan, 1981).

Studies emerging from this stream of knowledge examine the way in which a subject and its

environment affect one other. Emery (2000) argues that the transaction between, and co-

evolution of, subject and environment employs the worldview of contextualism (Pepper, 1942),

establishes the notion of an open system, and introduces the philosophical logic of relations

established by Peirce (1984). The objective of this stream of knowledge therefore, is to examine

the relationships between real or material variables and identify underlying patterns which

explain the phenomena of interest. Emery (2000) uses the terms ‘particulars’ or ‘phenotypical’

events to describe the dynamic events arising from the co-evolution of a subject and its


environment. According to Emery (2000), the approach to pattern identification employed by

this stream of knowledge is analogous to Cassirer’s (1923) identification of an arithmetic series

connecting a number progression. It traces the series of events produced by the co-evolution of

a subject and its environment over time. For Emery (2000), this series represents an underlying

genetic series, or genotypical concept (i.e. meaning; drawn from the DNA). Emery (2000)

subsequently refers to these concepts as ‘serial-genetic’ concepts. Particulars and phenotypical

concepts which are superficial are therefore regarded as distinct from universals or genotypical

concepts which represent an underlying reality. Furthermore, Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and

Emery (2000) argue that within each individual case, the underlying, or genotypical pattern can

be identified. In philosophical terms, Emery (2000) describes this as the identification of the

universal in the particular and argues that a unique feature of this stream of knowledge is the

ability for the genotypical series or pattern to explain the features of each particular case.

Furthermore, as noted in Table 37, research within this stream of knowledge emphasises

synthesis and is validated by comparing underlying patterns across cases. According to Emery

(2000) and Pepper (1942), this comparison of series between studies can be referred to as,

structural corroboration.


TABLE 37: CONTRASTING STREAMS OF RESEARCH

(Emery, 2000, p. 35)

The second stream (referred to in Table 37 as ‘Abstract Universals’) implies that knowledge of

events and objects can not be directly perceived, but must be arrived at by abstract intellectual

analysis (Cassirer, 1923; Emery, 2000). According to Emery (2000), this second stream of

knowledge places emphasis on understanding the essence of a thing or object, and that this is

achieved by analysis of constituent parts without reference to context. Emery (2000) describes

this as the philosophy of idealism and argues that this stream of thought began with Aristotle

(Mead, 1932), and runs through the work of the philosophers (Kant, 1764), physicists (Newton,

1687), and social scientists (Thorndike, 1932; Freud, 1933; Hull, 1943; Lewin, 1948) (although

according to Emery (2000), Lewin has been recognised by both streams of thought). Studies

following this stream of knowledge establish labels which identify the constituent parts of

phenomena of interest and examine the statistical pattern and frequency of such factors across

several contexts. As a result, Cassirer (1923), Lewin (1948) and Emery (2000) refer to the

variables examined within these studies as phenotypical concepts (because they deal with

immediately identifiable superficial characteristics), class concepts (because studies deal with

factors or categories of variables) and generic concepts (because of the emphasis on the


statistical frequency of factors regardless of context). Emery (2000) subsequently argues that this

stream of knowledge is unable to identify the universal or underlying pattern from a particular

case, nor is the pattern it identifies able to explain the features of each particular case. As noted

in Table 37, validity of findings within this stream of knowledge is achieved by replication of

studies. According to Emery (2000) and Pepper (1942) this comparison of series between

studies can be referred to as ‘multiplicative corroboration’.

Emery’s (2000) distinction between these two streams of thought may provide a useful way of

viewing the differences between the various theories of PCP examined throughout this literature

review. Consistent with the limitations identified in the PCP literature (see Chapter 1), it would

appear that few studies of PCP have followed the philosophy of material universals. The

literature reviewed in Appendix 9 predominantly identifies factors such as intelligence or

personality traits (such as independence) and conduct studies which identify how frequently

such factors are present in PCPers. Studies guided by the philosophy of material universals

which employ serial-genetic concepts would, in contrast, identify the individual PCPer, the

social structure they live and work within and their environment and then examine how the

actions and characteristics of that individual PCPer, the social structure and the influences of the

environment each contributed to his or her achievements. According to Emery (2000) such an

approach would yield an underlying pattern of PCP which could be corroborated with patterns

emerging from other cases. The philosophy of ‘material universals’ may therefore provide a

fruitful stream of thought for guiding future PCP research. It is also the philosophy

underpinning Emery’s (2000) OST, and the philosophy underpinning the PCP research

conducted in this study.

The remainder of this section will therefore provide a step by step review of the formal building

blocks of OST (which are used as either concepts, variables or methodological tools in this

study) and illustrate the ways in which the philosophy of material universals, when translated

into OST, may provide a useful theoretical framework for the study of PCP.

A 10.3 Closed and open systems

Emery (2000) argues that the two streams of knowledge outlined in Table 37 produces two

different conceptualisations of systems and, therefore, two different ways of conceptualising

PCP. According to Emery (2000), the philosophy of abstract universals deals with closed

systems. When applied to the study of PCP, a closed systems view implies that PCPers are static

and unable to learn from, or influence their environment. Furthermore, as has been discussed,

such a closed systems view places emphasis on explaining PCP in terms of endogenous sources,

particularly natural endowment (Cronbach 1975; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998; Molenaar,

2004; Clancey, 2006; Dai, 2010). For instance, in Dai’s (2010) view:


The prevailing views and theories in the field of gifted studies reflect a deep

individualistic bias...giftedness is always possessed, or in the head. Rarely did people see

gifted and talented competence as enabled...by technology and culture, or as distributed

between the person and an interacting environment (Dai, 2010, p. 209).

In addition, as outlined in Chapter 1, Feldman et al. (1994), and Dai (2010) argue that the usage

of a closed system perspective has been an important contributor to the limitations contained

within the PCP literature. According to Pepper (1942) and Capra (1992), sources of these

limitations may reside in the mechanical worldview adopted by many positivist studies. In

addition, Emery (1999a, 2011) argues that many of these limitations are also associated with the

contemporary systems approach to PCP research. According to Emery (2011), the term ‘open

system’ is often used, but not underpinned by, an adequate philosophical or conceptual

framework. Several systems theories are regarded by Emery (2011) as being self-referential,

unable to identify a definable environment, or incapable of explaining novelty or change.

In contrast, Emery (2000) argues that the philosophy of ‘material universals’ is connected with

an open systems perspective. When applied to the study of PCP, an open systems perspective

requires that any explanation of PCP examines the person, organisational structure and

environment. Emery’s (1999a; 2000) OST is an open systems theory which translates the

philosophy of material universals into a theoretical framework which establishes the system-in-

environment as the unit of analysis, as well as establishing concepts which examine the ways in

which PCPers may transact and co-evolve with their physical and social environment. This is a

conceptualisation that appears to be consistent with the definition of PCP provided in Section

2.4.4 (indicating that OST may be a useful framework for examining the novelty and contextual

appropriateness inherent in creative accomplishment).

A 10.4 System-in-environment

OST distinguishes itself from traditional theoretical frameworks informing the study of PCP by

utilising the system-in-environment as the unit of analysis. This approach examines not only the

characteristics of the PCPer (i.e. the focus of traditional frameworks), but also the characteristics

of the environment and the way in which both are co-producers of PCP.

Figure 7 below operationalises Emery’s (1999a) socio-ecological conceptualisation of an ‘open

system’ in diagrammatic form. Figure 7(A) defines the parameters of the open system (L11, L12,

L21, L22) and shows the relationship between the system and environment at a given point in


time. L11 refers to the system (defined in this thesis as the PCPer and his or her organisational

structure or PCPOrg), L22 refers to the environment, L12 describes the planning function or

the way in which the PCPOrg influences his or her environment, and L21 describes the learning

function or the way in which the environment influences the PCPOrg.

FIGURE 7: MODEL OF OPEN SYSTEM AND DIRECTIVE CORRELATION

Emery (1999a, p. 8).

Figure 7(A) establishes a clear delineation between the PCPOrg and the environment. Systems

may be defined at various levels of analysis (catering for studies of PCP at the individual and

organisational level) and systems within systems may be distinguished (allowing, for instance,

examination of the biological mechanisms underpinning PCP). Once defined, the system (in this

case, the PCPOrg) will have knowable characteristics and the nature of these characteristics will

determine whether the PCPOrg is a socio-technical system or other form of system such as a

psycho-social system. Within OST, the unique character of each PCPOrg is expressed using

Angyal’s (1942) concept of ‘system principle’. The system principle describes the unique

relationship between the PCPer and his or her environment. The OST identification of the

system and system principle may therefore extend traditional positivist studies of PCP by

offering a way in which endogenous variables (such as intelligence and personality) may be

examined with regard to their contribution toward PCP rather than being isolated factors. OST

may also offer a more holistic conceptualisation of the PCPOrg and a more structured

conceptualisation than is proposed by other systems models of PCP.

Figure 7(A) conceives of PCPOrg as living and working within, and transacting with, a definable

environment possessing knowable characteristics, an identifiable causal texture (Emery and

Trist, 1965) and understood processes of change (Emery and Trist 1972). According to Emery


(1977), the causal texture can refer to four types of environment (type I-‘random-placid’, type II-

‘clustered placid, type III-‘reactive disturbed’, and type IV-‘turbulent field’) each with differing

degrees to which various parts of the environment influence one another. Of most relevance to

this study is the type IV or turbulent field environment which tests the limits of PCPOrg

adaption because it possesses such a degree of interconnectedness that ‘autochthonous

processes’ are present, as if the ‘ground is in motion’ (Emery, 1977). Open Systems Theory

defines adaption as a state of perfect symmetry between a system and its environment and

conceives of two forms of adaptive behaviour; active adaption where individuals proactively

influence and shape their environment, and passive adaption where individuals respond to

changes in the environment.

Importantly, the environment outlined in Figure 7 refers to the relevant environment impinging

upon the PCPOrg. The relevant environment for one PCPOrg may, however, involve several

levels, including certain aspects of the global extended field as well as specific aspects of the task

environment. The OST definition of environment suggests, therefore, a distinctly different

conceptualisation than: (a) that contained within traditional studies of PCP (see Chapter 1), (b)

the definition of environment proposed by general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969), (c)

notions of field and domain proposed by contemporary systems studies of PCP (Feldman et al.,

1994), and (d) conceptualisations of the environment utilised by contemporary confluence

studies of PCP (see Section A 9.10).

Figure 7(B) incorporates Sommmerhoff’s (1969) notion of ‘directive correlation’ to

conceptualise the co-evolution of a PCPOrg and his or her environment over time, including

precise specification of how the PCPOrg influences and adapts to his or her environment (vice

versa), measurement of the resultant effect on PCPOrg attainment and identification of the

degree to which the relationship between the PCPOrg and his or her environment is either

adaptive or maladaptive.

A 10.5 OST methodology

The methodological roots of OST lie in action research and the examination of individual case

studies. The contemporary version of Open Systems Theory, however, combines both

qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. OST proceeds by establishing a clear research

aim along with a clear ‘serial-genetic’ definition of the phenomenon of interest (for the purpose

of this study, Section 2.4.4 defines the way in which the PCPer influences his or her

environment). Open Systems Theory studies utilise the system-in-environment as the unit of

analysis. Studies begin, therefore, by defining the system and then its relevant environment. This

is followed by the identification of variables (also defined in serial-genetic terms) which are


relevant to the purposes of the study. The framework of variables incorporates established OST

concepts as well as additional variables which may be identified as relevant or required by the

literature or the research topic. Studies using OST typically incorporate variables spanning

biological, psychological, sociological (i.e. the system) and contextual influences (i.e. the

environment) for the purpose of identifying systemic patterns among variables. Measurement

scales are then established for each variable. Variables may be categorical (in which case a

mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set of categories are defined), or ordinal (in which

case, published benchmarks are used to establish these scales). Data is typically collected using

structured questionnaires. As discussed in Section A 10.2, OST studies typically place less

reliance on sample size and multiplicative corroboration (however this is not precluded if

identified as relevant to the purposes of the study), and more emphasis on the identification of

relevant cases, detailed individual case examination and structural corroboration. Open Systems

Theory data analysis typically commences with a detailed examination of the characteristics of

the system and its environment. This is then followed by one of two methods designed to

identify the pattern of relationships between the system and its environment (i.e. directive

correlation analysis), or between the variables in the study (i.e. causal path analysis).

This section, therefore, provides an overview of the way in which the philosophy of material

universals (Section 12.13.2) and the conceptualisation of open systems (Sections 12.13.3 and

12.13.4) are translated into a consistent methodology. The section illustrates the relevance and

anticipated benefits of applying such a philosophy and methodology to the study of PCP;

particularly the potential for OST to assist in the identification of underlying patterns of PCP.

The remainder of this chapter will provide an overview of each of the OST concepts and

variables to be used in the research study described in Chapters 3 through 5.

A 10.6 Levels of functioning

OST distinguishes between three levels of PCPer functioning:

1. Goal seeking PCPers are those who are able, in different situations, to choose paths

that lead to a common end. Whilst PCPers are regarded as possessing the capacity

for higher level functioning, the organisational structures they live and work within

may restrict the range of their behaviour.

2. Purposeful PCPers are those who can produce the same outcome in different

environments or different outcomes given the same environment. PCPers

displaying purposeful behaviour are able to search the environment to pursue

specific purposes which seek the best balance between their need for autonomy and

homonomy and are able to express their uniqueness within the limits laid down by

their environment.


3. Ideal seeking PCPers are not limited to being purposeful; nor are they limited to

adapting to the environment as given. PCPers displaying ideal seeking behaviour

may be confronted by choice between purposes and choose outcomes which are

not necessarily possible in the time available. Ideals are ends that PCPers may

pursue which are endlessly approachable but unattainable. Ideals spring from the

PCPers capacity for ‘potential directive correlation’ (i.e. the capacity to imagine and

expect (Emery, 1999a)).

Emery (1977) identifies a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set of ideals that may be

pursued by human beings:

1. Homonomy is a sense of belongingness and interdependence, the opposite of

selfishness.

2. Nurturance means cultivating that which enhances health and beauty and is the

opposite of exploitation.

3. Humanity is seeking that which is fitting for us as people. It means regarding

people as superordinate to institutions and putting their wellbeing and development

above bureaucratic and material criteria; it is the opposite of inhumanity.

4. Beauty is that which is aesthetically ordered and intrinsically attractive. It is moving

within social and physical environments such that they become increasingly

desirable, and more dynamically balanced; it is the opposite of ugliness.

Section A 9.5 indicates that much of the existing literature is confined to an examination of goal

seeking behaviour. Whilst contemporary studies within this body of literature have examined the

emergence of purposes and the interaction between knowledge, purpose and affects, the

primary emphasis of this literature is the efficacy of goal setting regimes. Consequently, the

literature offers little in terms of a theory of higher level PCPer functioning. In contrast, the

OST conceptualisation of ‘ideal seeking’ offers a comprehensive framework for understanding

PCPer decision making, behaviour and adaption.

OST may therefore provide a conceptual toolkit that enables researchers to examine the level at

which PCPers function and identify the specific ideals that they may pursue. An additional

aspect of OST which may benefit PCP researchers is the ability to trace the empirical and

theoretical linkages between each of the three levels of functioning and other OST variables

such as decision making, organisational structure, motivation and adaption to different

environmental types.

A 10.7 Ecological learning


Open Systems Theory distinguishes between two modes of PCPer learning; ‘abstraction’ or

‘extraction’. The former refers to a process of academic learning, whereby abstract concepts

about the world are memorised, associations between these abstract concepts are created and

this knowledge is then used to understand real world phenomena. This mode of learning may be

regarded as a closed systems view of PCP because it assumes that PCPers possess sensory

organs which are unable to detect meaning from their environment. In contrast, ‘extraction’

refers to the process by which individuals learn by direct observation of their environment.

Extraction assumes that the physical world has an ‘informational structure’ which can be

detected and that human beings have evolved a unitary perceptual system which is adapted to

the environment and able to ‘extract’ meaning directly from this informational structure.

(Heider, 1926; Gibson, 1966).

The literature suggests that both modes of learning play a role in PCP. The large body of

literature reviewed in Section A 9.9 suggested that many creative processes are underpinned by

‘abstract’ learning. In contrast, Section A 9.3 indicated that learning by ‘extraction’ plays a

central role in the development of PCPer expertise, and Section A 9.9.3 suggested that

allocentric perception (i.e. learning by extraction) may offer a potentially fruitful alternative

conceptualisation of creative processes. Moreover, it was argued that the OST conceptualisation

of ecological learning may provide a framework which enables the study of PCP to move

beyond studies of cognitive processes and examine ways in which processes of allocentric

perception may or may not be systematically related to other variables such as organisational

structure, level of functioning, motivation and affects.

A 10.8 Effectivities and affordances

The concepts of ‘effectivities’ and ‘affordances’ were discussed briefly in Section A 9.8.3 in

relation to the PCPer ‘fit’ or ‘match’ with the context. This section of the thesis recaps these

concepts and places them in context with the broader theoretical model of OST to be used in

Chapters 3 through 5.

Open Systems Theory defines effectivities as properties of the system (in this case the PCPOrg

or L11 identified in Figure 7) relative to the environment (L22 Figure 7). Effectivities are

therefore reflected in the behaviour of the PCPer and the skills and capacities he or she can

bring to bear on the environment. In contrast, affordances are regarded as real and persistent

properties of the environment (L22 Figure 7) relative to the PCPOrg. They define what the

environment means to the PCPer and what he or she can do with it.


Sections A 9.2 and A 9.3 conceptualise the capacities of PCPers in terms of innate ability and

expertise, and Section A 9.8 identifies the various ways in which contexts may provide

opportunities for PCPers. In each section the broader OST conceptualisation of effectivities and

affordances is introduced and it is this more comprehensive conceptualisation which

incorporates, but is not limited to, innate ability, expertise and opportunities which appear to be

potentially useful for future PCP research. Not only does it seem the OST conceptualisation

may assist researchers to understand PCP in terms of adaption (i.e. the directive correlation

between system effectivities and environmental affordances), it may also assist researchers to

understand the ways in which effectivities are systematically related to organisational structure,

the affect system and the process of allocentric learning by extraction (discussed above).

A 10.9 Knowing’s

OST outlines four different forms of knowledge: ‘Knowledge Of’, ‘Knowledge About’,

‘Understanding’ and ‘Wisdom’:

1. Knowledge of, refers to the information or familiarity a PCPer has with a particular

topic, but does not refer to the direct perception or grasping of specific affordances

or knowledge of what to do in relation to affordances offered by their

environment.

2. Knowledge about, comes from instruction and direct perception which improve

the ability of the PCPer to act in relation to affordances in his or her environment.

3. Understanding, represents the next level in the hierarchy of knowledge, and refers

to a conscious awareness of the range of choices, how to rank them to achieve a

particular purpose and how to articulate the efficacy of such choices.

4. Wisdom is defined by Emery (1999a) as being “qualitatively different in that it is

concerned with…the unity of the human-world complex” (Emery, 1999a, p. 102)

and deals with the ability to make decisions which lead toward desirable futures.

The PCP literature contains several references to type of knowledge. For instance, Galton

(1869) argued that eminent individuals were qualitatively different in their thought processes

when compared with non-eminent individuals. Appendix 9 discusses the expertise literature,

Maturana and Varela, (1987) and Langer (1997) have discussed the role of ‘mindfulness’,

Sternberg (2007) has discussed the role of ‘practical intelligence’ and ‘wisdom’, Bohm (2002)

introduced the notion of the ‘implicate order’, and Runco (2006) has discussed the role of

‘intentionality’ in relation to creativity.

Open Systems Theory appears therefore to provide a framework capable of systematically

organising the spectrum of knowledge types relevant to PCP. It may also allow PCP researchers


to integrate these types of knowledge into a hierarchy, distinguish between the types of

knowledge held, and understand the relationship between differing forms of knowledge and

adaptive and maladaptive behaviour.

A 10.10 Behavioural preference-personality

Following the conceptualisation of PCPers as open systems co-evolving with their environment,

OST is underpinned by the assumption that PCPers grow and change whilst also maintaining a

recognizable pattern of behavioural preferences. Open Systems Theory therefore conceptualises

personality in terms of observable behavioural preferences or “an observable function that

describes how an individual converts a choice situation into an expected relative value for

himself” (Ackoff & Emery, 1972, p. 117).

Conceptualised in terms of Figure 7, up to four behavioural preferences can be distinguished by

examining the interplay between two functions, (a) the environmental responsiveness function

(L21), and (b) the environmental effectiveness function (L21). Environmental responsiveness

(L21), refers to the continuum ‘subjectiversion-objectiversion’ and measures the intensity of

stimulus and probability of response. PCPers scoring highly in terms of objectiversion are

regarded as being responsive to their environment. PCPers scoring highly in terms of

subjectiversion are regarded as being less responsive to their environment. Environmental

effectiveness (L12) refers to the continuum ‘internalization-externalization’ and measures the

degree to which the PCPer attempts to influence his or her environment. PCPers scoring highly

in terms of externalizing are those who tend to change their environment to suit their needs.

PCPers who score highly with respect to internalizing, prefer to adapt themselves to the

environment. PCPers can therefore be located on a personality space (see Figure 8 outlined

below).

FIGURE 8: OST MODEL OF BEHAVIOURAL PREFERENCES


(Emery, 1999b, p. 3).

Section A 9.4 discussed the contribution made by personality to PCP as well as the suggestion

that many conceptualisations of personality within the literature view PCPers from a closed

systems perspective. In addition, Section A 9.4 suggests that many existing personality theories

remain disconnected from a broader theoretical framework capable of relating personality to

other aspects of PCP. Open Systems Theory may therefore provide a conceptualisation capable

of extending the existing PCP personality research by examining issues such as how personality

manifests itself in terms of behaviour, how this behaviour contributes to the attainment of PCP

and, furthermore, how behavioural preferences relate theoretically and empirically to other

aspects of PCP.

A 10.11 Affects

Open Systems Theory identifies three sources of motivation: (a) ideal seeking, (b) six intrinsic

motivators (see Section A 10.13) and (c) the affect system. Open Systems Theory draws heavily

on the theory of affect developed by Tomkins (1962) and appears to be consistent with much of

the contemporary affect research identified in Section A 9.6.

Open Systems Theory postulates that the affect system is the primary motivational system, that

the affect system is innate and adaptive, that PCPer motivation is influenced by the interaction

of the affect and drive systems and that the affect system possesses the capacity for

amplification and generation of high and sustained levels of motivation. In addition, OST

postulates that cognition, purpose and affect operate as an inseparable whole motivational

system and, furthermore, that affects are influenced by the level of functioning and form of

organisational structure. Specifically, OST suggests that ideal seeking and organisational

structures based on ‘design principle 2’ (see Section A 10.12) are inherently related to

maximisation of positive affect.

Open Systems Theory appears, therefore, to offer PCP researchers with a comprehensive

theoretical framework for examining the ways in which affects and the affect system may be

related to the engagement and sustainment of the type of behaviour (i.e. high levels of

motivation and allocentric perception) that is relevant to PCP, as well as examining ways in

which affects are influenced by and contribute to other OST variables.

A 10.12 Design principles


Section A 9.7 indicated that there is a large amount of literature in relation to organisational

structure and functioning. Few studies, however, examine the relationship between

organisational structure and PCP. As discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.9, several concerns also

exist regarding the adequacy of the concepts and methodology underpinning many

contemporary social science studies of organisational structure and functioning. Furthermore,

few studies within the contemporary literature systematically link the notion of organisational

structure to other variables, or theoretically link organisational structure to organisational

functioning.

Open Systems Theory argues that an organisational structure is created each time people engage

in a relationship and that it is the nature of those relationships that determine the form of

organisation. Open Systems Theory identifies two genotypical organisational design principles.

Figure 9 shows that the first Design Principle (DP1) is based upon ‘redundancy of parts’;

meaning more parts (people) are required to perform a task than are needed at any given point

in time. In DP1 the responsibility for coordination and control of work is located at least one

level above where the work, learning or planning is being performed (see Figure 9 S1). Design

Principle 1 yields a supervisory or dominant hierarchy and this organisational form has been

shown to reduce variety, amplify error, systematically erode intrinsic motivators, produce

negative affects and produce inherently maladaptive results with respect to human needs

(Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a).

Figure 9 shows that the second Design Principle (DP2) is characterised by a ‘redundancy of

functions’; meaning more skills and functions are built into parts (people) than are required at

any given point in time. In DP2 the responsibility for coordination and control is located with

the people performing the task. DP2 yields a functional hierarchy which is shown to increase

variety, attenuate error, enhance intrinsic motivation, enable ideal seeking and generate positive

affects (Emery, 1977; Emery, 1999a).

FIGURE 9: ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES


(Emery, 2000, p. 20).

Open Systems Theory conceptualises the absence of design principle as a laissez-faire

arrangement where there are no agreed goals, organisational structure or leadership. According

to Emery (1999a, p. 109), laissez-faire produces negative affects, particularly frustration, and is

regarded as an ‘anything goes’, ‘do your own thing’ mode of operation in which individuals feel

no anchorage or direction.

Open Systems Theory regards the organisational design principle as a central concept which

influences many other OST concepts. The design principles offer a specific lens through which

the marriages, professional relationships, business structures and learning arrangements of

PCPers can be understood.

Open Systems Theory may therefore offer future PCP researchers a well-established and well

defined conceptual apparatus capable of transcending superficial differences between the

various organisational structures that PCPers live and work within. In addition to this, by

introducing the concept of the design principle, which is theoretically and empirically linked

with other variables such as affects, motivation, group dynamics, level of functioning,

communication and learning, OST may offer a way for researchers to directly examine the

relationship between organisational structure and PCP, examine the relationship between

organisational structure and other variables relevant to PCP (see Sections 2.4 through 2.9) and

provide a methodological approach necessary to address many of the concerns raised within the

literature.


A 10.13 Intrinsic motivators

Sections A 9.6.2 and A 9.6.3 indicate that high levels of intrinsic motivation are characteristic of

PCPers, and Section A 10.11 discusses the three sources of motivation identified by OST. The

first two sources of motivation (ideal seeking and affects) have been discussed in Sections A

10.6 and A 10.11 respectively. The third source of PCPer motivation identified by OST refers to

six intrinsic motivators:

1. Elbow Room, meaning the freedom of the PCPer to participate in decisions

directly affecting their work.

2. Learning, meaning the opportunity for the PCPer to learn during his or her work

and go on learning. Importantly, this motivator refers to the ability of the PCPer to

set his or her own goals and receive feedback about progress in relation to those

goals.

3. Variety, meaning the ability of the PCPer to participate in work which provides an

optimal degree of stimulation.

4. Mutual support and respect, meaning that the PCPer has colleagues, family and

friends who will support his or her efforts when needed and who respect and value

the PCPer’s skills and contributions.

5. Meaningfulness, meaning that the PCPer believes that his or her work is socially

useful, and that he or she is able to see the whole product of the work.

6. Desirable future, meaning that the PCPer believes that his or her work offers a

stepping stone to some more desirable state and the work is not seen by the PCPer

as a dead end.

According to OST, the optimal conditions for PCPer intrinsic motivation (in any PCPer

domain) will occur when adequate levels of each of these six motivators are present. Moreover,

OST suggests that PCPer intrinsic motivation is underpinned by the organisational form (see

design principles Section A 10.12) that PCPers live and work within. Theoretically, Design

Principle 2 structures are thought to underpin optimal intrinsic motivation, whereas other

organisational forms produce suboptimal levels of intrinsic motivation.

The literature reviewed in Section A 9.6 indicates that a large and eclectic body of research has

been undertaken in relation to motivation. Furthermore, this review also suggested that no

general theory of motivation exists, and that relatively few studies have been dedicated toward

understanding the motivation of PCPers (particularly in terms of identifying the underpinning

motivational mechanisms producing PCP). By conceptualising six intrinsic motivators,

integrating them with a more comprehensive theory of motivation (including a theory of affects

and the ways in which motivation may be influenced by organisational structures) and offering a


methodology by which the strength of relationship between motivational variables and other

variables contributing toward PCP can be measured, OST appears to provide a useful

framework and methodology to shed light on a topic which has long been held as central to

PCP.

A 10.14 Group dynamics

Open Systems Theory identifies four types of group dynamics: ‘Dependency’, ‘Fight/Flight’,

‘Pairing’ and ‘Creative Working Mode’. Each of these dynamics were first identified by Bion

(1961), however, OST has developed the theory and postulates that group dynamics are

systemically related to organisational structure (i.e. design principle).

Open Systems Theory proposes that PCPers living and working in DP1 organisational

structures may display fight/flight responses. Design Principle 1 structures inhibit the

expression of human needs and consequently produce behaviour directed toward the leadership

of the group which aims to ameliorate these inhibiting effects. Design Principle 1 structures

result in behaviour designed to remove, ignore or run away from the leader. The dominant

affects of fight/flight group dynamics are anger and hate.

PCPers living and working in DP1 organisational structures may experience dependency when

the group assumes that it exists in order to be sustained by a leader, that the leadership is

powerful and that the leadership will provide security for the immature group and ensure that

no untoward events will result from irresponsible behaviour of individual members. Under the

group dynamic of dependency, PCPers rely solely on the direction of the designated leader of

the DP1 structure and the dominant affects are guilt and depression.

In contrast, PCPers living and working within DP2 organisational structures are expected to

operate in a creative working mode where there is conscious participation in, and cooperation

towards task achievement and individual development. Communication is efficient and positive

affects are present. The dominant affects in DP2 structures and the creative working mode are

hope and joy.

Section A 9.7.2 discussed the influence of group functioning on PCP. In addition to the eclectic

mixture of methodological approaches used within the literature, this review suggests that no

generally agreed framework is available for researchers to examine such issues and,

consequently, little consensus exists regarding the precise role of group functioning in the lives

of PCPers. OST therefore offers PCP researchers a conceptualisation of group dynamics which


identifies a set of underlying dynamics that are systemically related to organisational structure,

affectual responses and group functioning.

A 10.15 Effective communication

Open Systems Theory uses the ‘ABX model of communication’ (Ackoff & Emery, 1972) to

specify the minimum elements for task mediated diffusion and change. According to this model,

A and B are people or groups and X is an object of mutual concern. Open Systems Theory sets

out four conditions necessary for effective and influential communication (openness,

psychological similarity, mutually shared field and trust). For a PCPer to influence another, the

relationship must be reciprocal and positive such that the person being influenced regards the

PCPer as a relevant figure, in some way a peer, not remote from the concerns of his or her

everyday world. In addition, they must hold the PCPer in respect. Any contradiction to these

conditions is expected to heighten tension, and increase the probability of a shift from learning

to resistance. For instance, OST postulates that organisational structures based on design

principle 1 (see Section A 10.12) systematically and negatively affect the four conditions for

effective communication. Design Principle 1 structures are based upon the principle of

asymmetrical dependence; consequently, they inhibit the establishment of mutually respectful

relationships around objects of mutual concern. In contrast, organisational structures based on

design principle 2 (see Section A 10.12) are based upon the principle of symmetrical

dependence; meaning that they systematically enhance the conditions required for effective

communication.

Section A 9.7.2 discussed the literature in relation to the communication within high

performance groups and Section A 9.8.2 examined the characteristic patterns of innovation

diffusion. Whilst each section draws on an eclectic range of communications literature (Craig &

Muller, 2007), the communication models which inform these studies appear, more often than

not, to be confined to early information transmission models (Shannon & Weaver, 1949), or are

left unclear.

Open Systems Theory may therefore provide PCP researchers with a conceptualisation of

communication which enables a more precise understanding of the type of communication

which is related to PCP and, furthermore, a means by which the conditions for communications

effectiveness can be systematically related to other variables such as organisational structure.

A 10.16 Linking OST and the literature review


Appendix 9 provided a review of the nine PCP literatures and the present appendix provided a

review of OST. As argued throughout the thesis, OST offers a fruitful framework upon which

the future paradigm of PCP research may be developed. Of particular benefit is the

interdisciplinary nature of the OST framework, and its capacity to synthesise the multi-

disciplinary literature and identify the pattern of biological, psychological, sociological, and

contextual factors producing PCP. Table 38 provides an illustration of the ways in which OST

variables relate to the nine different literatures reviewed in Appendix 9, and therefore the ways

in which patterns of relationships between this fragmented and compartmentalised literature

may be identified and understood. The left hand column outlines the nine perspectives

contained within the literature review in Appendix 9. The right hand column provides an

illustrative example of the variables which may be incorporated into the OST framework, that

are relevant to the concepts described in each of the nine sections of the literature review.

TABLE 38: LINKING THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE

Literature review theme OST Variables

Innate ability Breadth of talent

Expertise talent

Learned expertise Expertise learnt in the field

Expertise learnt not in the field

Personality-behavioural preference Subjectivizer

Objectivizer

Internalizer

Externalizer

Purposeful behaviour-ideal seeking behaviour Goal seeking

Purposefulness

Ideal Seeking

Motivation-affect Number of interests

Number of life goals

Motivational level

Positive affect

Negative affect



Organisational structure and functioning Design principles

Group dynamics


Communication

Creative processes Learning by abstraction

Learning by extraction

Context Disturbed-reactive environment

Turbulent field environment

Environmental affordances

Confluence Causal path analysis

A 10.17 Summary

This section has provided an overview of Open Systems Theory (OST), contrasted it against the

theoretical frameworks used in the PCP literature, introduced the variables utilised in Chapters 3

through 5 and discussed its usefulness as a theoretical framework for future research into the

patterns producing PCP.

The literature review indicates that traditional studies of performance and creativity have been

unable to provide an adequate explanation for PCP and that future research should utilise a

systems and contextual based approach. It has been argued, however, that substantial

differences exist between the various systems approaches that may be used to examine PCP, and

that the choice between such theories may have important implications for the understanding of

PCP. It has been argued that Open Systems Theory (OST) not only offers an established theory

based on a clear line of philosophical development, including a potentially useful approach to

the conceptualisation of variables, it also introduces a framework that enables identification of

theoretical and empirical relationships between variables and a methodology capable of

addressing many of the limitations associated with traditional positivist and contemporary

confluence studies of PCP. Open Systems Theory enables researchers to conceptualise PCPers

as purposeful individuals and examine the patterns of co-evolution between individuals and

their environments. Moreover, it has been argued that OST provides a framework capable of

identifying patterns among bio-psycho-social and contextual variables and is therefore capable

of integrating and synthesising findings from an eclectic range of interdisciplinary studies.

In summary, OST not only appears to offer a theoretical framework and methodological

approach which addresses many of the limitations associated with existing studies of

performance and creativity, it may also provide a fruitful future framework that, is consistent

with the aims of this study, has the capacity to extend and integrate contemporary systems

studies of performance and creativity, and, support the systematic accretion of knowledge in

relation to PCP.


Peak Creative Performance - ResearchDirect

Documents