The paradoxes of creativity management

Abstract

al. (1999). Creativity and terror management: Evidence that creative activity increases guilt and social projection following mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 19-32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.19. Barevičiūtė, J. (2014). Pagrindiniai kūrybiškumo ir kūrybingumo aspektai šiuolaikiniuose humanitariniuose bei socialiniuose moksluose [The aspects of creativity and creativeness in contemporary humanities and social sciences]. Filosofi ja. Sociologija, 25(1), 19-28. Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 21-32. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0901_3. Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2014. A framework for creative management and managing creativity. In C. Bilton, & S. Cummings (Eds.), Handbook of management and creativity (pp. 1-12). Regency: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bilton, C. (2015). Uncreativity: the shadow side of creativity. Business Administration and Management Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004 Business Administration and Management Abstract THE PARADOXES OF CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT Tomas KačerauskasCreativity is a very important aspect of market economy. Creativity is an ambivalent and contradictory phenomenon that covers both positive and negative aspects. As a result, management of creativity faces some paradoxes. The paper deals with 10 paradoxes of creativity management including one grand paradox (GP) and nine minor paradoxes (MP). By stimulating creativity, the managers risk to provoke the disobedience for their instructions including an instruction to develop creativity (GP). Successful period of an organization is an obstacle to develop the creative ideas (MP1). A radical implementation of creative ideas threatens the identity of organization (MP2). Creativity provokes the confl icts in organization (MP3). Every inventor or innovator tries to negate his (her) social environment that has educated and stimulated him (her) (MP4). Although hard management kills creativity, the latter needs sometimes very hard decisions (MP5). The worse the results are, the more creative the decisions in organization are (MP6). Organizations should manage both quantity and quality (MP7). Organization needs not only management of knowledge but also management of ignorance and naiveté (MP8). The managers should forget the past success of organization and think about future end of it (MP9). The main aim of this paper is to describe these paradoxes.Another aim is to present the different approaches towards creativity management. Finally, the paper seeks to dethrone a naive attitude that creativity in economy solves all possible problems. The biggest challenge to the management is the very creativity.

Satisfaction and perceived impact of virtual learning during COVID‐19 lockdown: A case study of an online nursing research conference

“…Japan has recently used robotics to conduct a virtual graduation ceremony for their students, which is a clear indication of the unpredictable level of development in computer technology evident in the innovative development of advanced countries (Kacerauskas & Kusaityte, 2020). Despite all these innovations, there has been an urgent need to assess the impact of virtual learning sessions on learners as the world progresses in this system of learning.…”

An analysis of dealers' influence on the automotive market in the Republic of Serbia

“…Creativity is a very important aspect of the market economy. One of the most important conditions for survival in the competition between organizations, however, implies creativity and innovativeness as its application (Kačerauskas, 2016). The message of the right content and the right form (Brkić, 2003, p. 262).…”

Political Communication of Creative Society: The Aspects of Public Policy

“…The concept of creative society is ambiguously assessed by various authors (both foreign and Lithuanian). The authors analyse different aspects of creative society: creative society features and creative class (Kacherauskas, 2017;Kačerauskas, 2015Kačerauskas, , 2017Kacerauskas, 2020;Mažeikis, 2015;Stasiulis, 2015aStasiulis, , 2015bStasiulis, , 2015c, creative economy and creative industries (Kačerauskas, 2018;Kačerauskas et al, 2021), creativity (Diržytė et al, 2021;Kačerauskas, 2016aKačerauskas, , 2016cKačerauskas, , 2019, creative city (Betlej & Kačerauskas, 2021;Kačerauskas, 2016b;Landry, 2008). Rather successful attempts for political aspect research could be investigation of creative bureaucracy (Landry & Caust, 2017); academic focus of renowned urban expert Landry (2019) recently moved from creative city to creative bureaucracy (Landry, 2020a(Landry, , 2020bLandry & Ellis, 2021) -best illustrated by his annual Creative Bureaucracy Festival.…”