Knowledge is power? An inquiry into knowledge management, its effects on individual creativity, and the moderating role of an entrepreneurial mindset.

Phipps, Simone T.A. ; Prieto, Leon C.

INTRODUCTION

Organizational performance is critical for the survival of a company. Successful business operation allows firms to compete and stay afloat, while closure looms for those that fail. Many factors influence the effectiveness and performance of both employees and the organization that they serve. Some of these factors include transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Whittington & Goodwin, 2001; Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007; Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche, & Hurtado-Torres, 2008), organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Min-Huei, 2004), organizational learning (Arthur & Huntley, 2005; Chich-Jen, Wang, & Fu-Jin, 2009; Chaveerug & Ussahawanitchakit, 2008), and entrepreneurship (Zahra & Covin, 1995; Dyduch, 2008; Covin & Miles, 1999). Ultimately, these dynamics center around, not only the structure and culture of the organization, but also the abilities of the human resources employed within the organization. One such ability is individual creativity. According to Oldham and Cummings (1996), creativity involves the generation of ideas, procedures, or products that are novel or original, and that are potentially relevant for, or useful to, an organization. The authors further clarify novelty as entailing a significant recombination of existing materials or an introduction of completely new materials. Amabile (1983) refers to creativity as a response that is novel, appropriate, and useful to the task at hand.

Creative individuals are an asset to any organization as creativity positively affects organizational performance. Employees' creativity often provides a starting point for successful organizational innovation (Zhou, 2003; Bassett-Jones, 2005), and many researchers agree that creativity is fundamental to ensure an organization's competitiveness and survival (Gilson, 2008; Cox & Blake, 1991). Fentem, Dumas and McDonnell (1998) concede that although the phenomenon of creativity has long been of great interest to the philosophy, psychology, and design research communities, more recently, the business community has become interested due to global competition, our "accelerated culture," and the evermore rapidly changing business environment, which force organizations to constantly innovate their processes, products and services. For today's knowledge and innovation-based economies, as well as entrepreneurship, creativity will define what could be the essence of a business's raison d'etre (De Miranda, Aranha, & Zardo, 2009).

Therefore, it is important to determine the factors that promote or release creativity in individuals, and to find ways to foster their creative vision, so that the organizations for which they work can reap the benefits of their originality and resourcefulness. There are numerous factors that encourage creativity including diversity (Bassett-Jones, 2005), personality, cognitive style, job complexity, relationship with supervisors and coworkers, rewards, evaluation, deadlines and goals, and spatial configuration of work settings (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Knowledge and learning have also been associated with creativity. Weisberg (1999) mentioned that it is universally acknowledged that one must have knowledge of a field if one hopes to produce something novel within it, because knowledge provides the basic elements or building blocks out of which new ideas are constructed.

However, knowledge must be effectively managed to maximize its creative productivity. Wei and Xie (2008) defined knowledge management as a systematic and organized approach to improve the organization's ability to mobilize knowledge to enhance decision-making, take actions, and deliver results in support of the underlying business strategy. Therefore, KM is a process that aids in the procurement and dissemination of knowledge within an organization. Since creativity builds on knowledge, and KM facilitates the generation, organization, and diffusion of knowledge, KM should positively affect creativity as it ensures the availability of knowledge to employees, who can then assimilate the knowledge as they produce creative solutions.

Another factor that has been associated with creativity is entrepreneurship. Florida (2002) mentions varied forms of creativity including economic creativity, which the author equates with entrepreneurship. According to Pina e Cunha (2007), one of the major issues entrepreneurship research deals with is the creation of opportunities. Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon (2003) refer to entrepreneurial mindset, which they define as a growth-oriented perspective through which individuals promote flexibility, creativity, continuous innovation, and renewal. Thus, an individual with an entrepreneurial mindset (also referred to as entrepreneurial spirit) should be better equipped rationally or analytically to embody or exemplify creativity. As regards cognitive signs driving the entrepreneurial spirit, creativity is at the heart of an entrepreneur's search for meaning (De Miranda, Aranha, & Zardo, 2009).

The literature suggests that both knowledge management and an entrepreneurial mindset should play a role in individual creativity. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to determine the influence of knowledge management on individual creativity, as well as to determine the moderating effect of an entrepreneurial mindset on the knowledge management-creativity relationship. The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To explore the relationship between the components of knowledge management (knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application) and individual creativity.

2. To explore the possibility of an entrepreneurial mindset moderating the relationship between the components of knowledge management and individual creativity.

The significance of this study lies in the ability to use the results to foster an organizational environment, as well as provide resources, and develop processes that promote individual creativity and facilitate the creative process. If the findings show that knowledge management does indeed influence individual creativity, knowledge management systems could be developed with a focus on the components that are shown to impact creativity most. Also, the results can be used in the selection process when hiring new employees or when choosing current employees for special projects. If an entrepreneurial mindset is found to be a moderator, this finding can be considered during selection according to the level of creativity needed to fulfill or surpass the requirements of a particular position or to favorably complete a project.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge has achieved central importance in modern societies, as well as in business organizations (Hack, 2003), and within knowledge-intensive organizations, techniques for managing existing knowledge and apprehending new knowledge effectively are becoming of key value, particularly where processes are very dynamic (Fentem, Dumas, & McDonnell, 1998). However, there are different views of knowledge, which determine the focus as regards knowledge management (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The authors explain that depending on whether knowledge is perceived as data and information, an object, a process, a capability, a state of mind, or a condition of having access to information, knowledge management emphasizes exposure to and assimilation of information, building and managing knowledge stocks, the creation, sharing and distribution of knowledge, building core competencies, enhancing learning, or organized access to and retrieval of content.

In this manuscript, knowledge embraces all the aforementioned views, and thus, knowledge management reflects this conceptualization, encompassing the components of systems developed and implemented to support and enhance knowledge management. These components include knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge creation involves the acquisition and development of knowledge from both internal and external sources, and is characterized by three main factors, namely metaphor and analogy, the transition from personal to organizational knowledge, and ambiguity and redundancy. Metaphors and analogies assist with the visualization and explanation of difficult concepts, transition from personal to organizational knowledge occurs through individual interaction, and ambiguity and redundancy reflect the willingness to try numerous different approaches, despite the inevitability of some failures.

The authors also mention that knowledge creation depends on knowledge conversion, which involves socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. Socialization reflects the idea of knowledge sharing and transition, and can include activities like brainstorming. Externalization involves the communication of concepts, and reflects the need for metaphor and analogy. Combination refers to the process of sorting, adding, and fusing knowledge to create new knowledge, which reflects ambiguity and redundancy, and internalization concerns learning, whether through personal experience(s) or the experience(s) of others.

When knowledge is created, its storage protects against loss, and facilitates retrieval at a later date. Wei and Xie (2008) state that effective storage and retrieval mechanisms enable the organization to quickly access knowledge. The authors also emphasize that to remain competitive, organizations must not only create, but capture and locate organizational knowledge. Knowledge storage is synonymous with organizational memory and includes storage and retrieval technology and techniques such as e-mail, intranet, query language, multimedia databases, expert systems, and database management systems (Chou, 2005). Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) also mention knowledge that is incarnated in individuals. Storage in the form of the latter is not as secure or dependable, however, as it can easily be lost (or leaked) due to memory failure, death, or turnover.

Another important process in knowledge management is knowledge transfer, which is driven by communication processes and information flows, and occurs at various levels, namely between individuals, from individuals to groups, between groups, across groups, and from the group to the organization (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Documents or manuals facilitate the transfer of explicit knowledge to other people, thereby helping them "experience the experiences" of others indirectly (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The authors also explain the concept of "redundancy," which encourages frequent dialogue and communication, helps to create a common cognitive ground among employees, and thus facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge. Since organizational members share overlapping information, redundancy takes place primarily in information sharing, and thus, it spreads new explicit knowledge as well.

The fourth component of the knowledge management process is knowledge application, which simply denotes knowledge utilization (Song, van der Bij, & Weggeman, 2005). Knowledge application allows the knowledge to be integrated in employee work processes. It is the use of the knowledge created, retrieved from storage, and/or transferred, in order to contribute to organizational performance and/or to gain competitive advantage.

Organizations are becoming concerned to create environments where large numbers of people can work efficiently and creatively together towards a common goal (Fentem, Dumas, & McDonnell, 1998). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems enable these organizations to provide such an environment so that individuals can generate, access, share, and use knowledge to enhance the creative process and achieve organizational success.

ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSET

McGrath and MacMillan (2000) provide five defining characteristics of the entrepreneurial mindset, namely 1) the passionate seeking of new opportunities, 2) the enormously disciplined pursuit of opportunities, 3) the pursuit of only the best opportunities instead of chasing after every option, 4) the focus on adaptive execution, and 5) the engagement of energies of everyone in one's domain. According to the authors, the first characteristic embraces alertness, which enables the readiness to grasp opportunities when they arise. The second characteristic goes a step beyond alertness to involve actual action. The third characteristic alludes to the determination of boundaries, as the individual does not recklessly track every promising scent, but carefully chooses optimality over quantity. The fourth characteristic reflects an ability to not just act, but to perform, while adjusting according to occurring changes. The fifth characteristic incorporates the idea of engagement as the individual draws on relationships to garner resources, and employs the knowledge, skills, and abilities of those around him/her.

According to Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon (2003), entrepreneurial mindset is comprised of four components, namely 1) recognizing entrepreneurial opportunities, 2) entrepreneurial alertness, 3) real options logic, and 4) entrepreneurial framework. The authors explain that entrepreneurial alertness refers to superior insight, and that it informs the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities. Real options logic alludes to the ability to deal with the uncertainties inherent in recognizing and pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, and entrepreneurial framework includes actions such as goal setting, establishing an opportunity register to facilitate visibility, and determining the timing of strategy launches to make the most of opportunities. Although the two definitions of entrepreneurial mindset are not identical, the elements of both descriptions reflect common themes pertaining to the exploration, recognition and pursuit of opportunities.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Knowledge is a major organizational resource. This perspective is maintained by the knowledge-based view of the firm (KBV), and builds upon and extends the resource-based view (RBV) or theory of the firm (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The authors explain that because knowledge-based resources are usually difficult to imitate and socially complex, KBV posits that these knowledge assets may produce long-term, sustainable, competitive advantage. However, the knowledge must be effectively managed to achieve such results. KBV assumes that knowledge creation, integration, transfer, and application would benefit companies more than knowledge itself (Chou, 2005). Therefore, adequate and competent knowledge management is fundamental for the successful operation of organizations.

KBV also incorporates creativity and entrepreneurial mindset. Choo and Bontis (2002) state that the knowledge base of the organization includes the tangible and intangible knowledge, experience, and skills within the organization, and that creativity derives from obvious and visible expertise as well as invisible reservoirs of experience. In addition, theoretically, knowledge management is a great accelerator of innovation and creativity (Choo & Bontis, 2002). With regard to entrepreneurial mindset, organizational knowledge provides not only the foundation for new ideas but also the wisdom and experience of judging the appropriate opportunities to pursue (Choo & Bontis, 2002). Thus, effective knowledge management would assist in ensuring that apposite information is available for individuals to use, facilitating the discovery and exploitation of new opportunities.

The essence of the RBV lies in the emphasis on resources and capabilities as the genesis of competitive advantage (Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Therefore, the notion of dynamic capabilities complements the premise of the resource-based view of the firm (Wang & Ahmed, 2007), and thus the knowledge-based view as well. In fact, Choo and Bontis (2002) assert that each knowledge strategy is associated with critical capabilities including creativity. Wang and Ahmed (2007) affirm that dynamic capabilities refer to a wide range of resources, processes, and capabilities, and that they capture the idea of firms constantly adapting, renewing, reconfiguring, and recreating their resources and capabilities in line with the competitive environment. Therefore, dynamic capabilities theory embraces creativity which involves the generation of new ideas. It also reflects an entrepreneurial mindset, which is sufficiently alert and insightful to recognize opportunities for adaptation, renewal, reconfiguration, and recreation of resources.

The dynamic capabilities perspective also embraces knowledge management. Chou (2005) states that knowledge is dynamic, because it is created through social interactions among individuals and organizations. The author also explains that knowledge is context-specific, since the information becomes useful and meaningful knowledge only when it is given a context and interpreted by individuals. Hence, the ability to manage knowledge effectively facilitates the use of the knowledge in the appropriate contexts, and thus enables amendment or reconfiguration.

This manuscript is grounded on RBV/KBV and dynamic capabilities because together, the theories firmly support the ideas presented. RBV, by itself, has been criticized as being static, failing to address the influence of market dynamism and firm evolution over time, but the concept of dynamic capabilities reconciles this censure by being intrinsically linked to market dynamism (Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Dynamic capabilities are inherently associated with change as they fundamentally refer to not just the resources, but also the ability to modify and reconstruct the resources to achieve competitive advantage.

PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

Knowledge Creation

Knowledge can completely lose its value in a trice, through new kinds of knowledge, as well as by becoming common property, and thus, no longer a scarce good (Hack, 2003). Thus it is important for an organization to consistently create knowledge in order to maintain its competitive advantage. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) mention ambiguity and redundancy, characteristics of knowledge creation, as important in the creative process. According to them, ambiguity and "creative chaos" go hand in hand, and redundancy can be employed to promote creativity and to discover, in practicality, what does not produce desirable results. The authors also explain that redundancy pertains to the existence of information that extends beyond the immediate operational requirements of organizational members. Therefore, information concerning business activities, managerial responsibilities, and the company as a whole deliberately overlaps to provide a more comprehensive picture. It is reasonable to suggest that this additional information would serve as a strong foundation, enabling individuals to sprout new ideas, based on the plethora of knowledge available.

Kogut and Zander (1992) develop a dynamic view of how firms create new knowledge, suggesting that new skills are learned by recombining current capabilities, and thus growth of knowledge occurs by building on social relationships, and hence experiencing new things. This exposure to novelties helps create new knowledge and also boosts idea generation, thus promoting creativity. An entrepreneurial mindset or dominant logic is flexible and receptive to novel and promising business models, leading to a constant search for and filtering of new ideas and process innovations (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002). Therefore an entrepreneurial mindset would spur individuals to actively seek interaction that would lead to knowledge building, idea generation, and thus, creativity. The following propositions reflect the associations put forward among knowledge creation, EM, and individual creativity:

Proposition 1A: Knowledge creation is positively related to individual creativity.

Proposition 1B: Entrepreneurial mindset moderates the relationship between knowledge creation and individual creativity, such that the relationship is stronger when EM is greater than when EM is lesser.

Knowledge Storage/Retrieval

While organizations create knowledge and learn, they also forget (Chou, 2005). Therefore, knowledge storage and retrieval is important so that organizational members can access and process pertinent information in order to gain inspiration for new ideas and initiatives. For instance, Fentem, Dumas, and McDonnell (1998) explain how information systems consisting of spatial representations or maps of strategic knowledge can provide the necessary information vis-a-vis facts and relationships to facilitate effective cross-functional communication in order to integrate organizational actions, as well as stimulate creativity by generating different perspectives. Thus knowledge storage for subsequent retrieval can play a role in an individual's unleashing of his/her creative strength.

Pina e Cunha (2007) present entrepreneurship as decision-making, and three different perspectives are broached, namely the rational, intuitive, and improvisational perspectives. From the rational viewpoint, the author explains that opportunities are discovered by people having access to more or better information. Clearly, knowledge storage would facilitate increased access to needed information. Also, from the rational perspective, entrepreneurs think to discover the opportunity. From an intuitive perspective, however, "flashes of insight" enable the entrepreneur to envision the opportunity. The improvisational perspective advocates the construction of opportunities through the entrepreneur's actions. All these perspectives embrace creativity, as the entrepreneur finds a means to identify and exploit an opportunity. It is the individual's entrepreneurial mindset, however, that allows the perception of these opportunities and thus strengthens the extent to which knowledge influences creativity. The following propositions relay the relationships suggested among knowledge storage/retrieval, EM, and individual creativity:

Proposition 2A: Knowledge storage/retrieval is positively related to individual creativity.

Proposition 2B: Entrepreneurial mindset moderates the relationship between knowledge storage/retrieval and individual creativity, such that the relationship is stronger when EM is greater than when EM is lesser.

Knowledge Transfer

Explicit knowledge such as rules and formulas, and tacit knowledge that is gained from experience or socialization, must be shared for the maximum benefit of organizations in general, and specifically, for the increased creativity of individuals. Fentem, Dumas, and McDonnell (1998) assert that strategic knowledge, which enables the formulation of strategies, action plans, and tactics in different contexts, is often tacit, and transferred through informal conversations, which help generate new ideas and concepts. Knowledge transfer in this fashion could be quite a lengthy process. Information systems can facilitate the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, which can then be shared throughout the organization efficiently and effectively, acting as a platform from which to draw new ideas, and thus boost creativity.

Individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset, because of their proactive nature in terms of seeking opportunities, should readily take advantage of and benefit from knowledge transfer processes. Indeed, Pablo and Javidan (2004) relate how following an acquisition, knowledge transfer activities were carried out, first and foremost, by organizational members with an entrepreneurial mindset. These individuals saw opportunities and chose to pursue them. Rather than focus on the stress and uncertainty that might result from the acquisition, they approached the acquisition as an opportunity for themselves and their team (Pablo & Javidan, 2004). Similarly, individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset should embrace and increase their creative abilities by utilizing opportunities to share knowledge, and thus gain new perspectives. The following propositions convey the links proffered among knowledge transfer, EM, and individual creativity:

Proposition 3A: Knowledge transfer is positively related to individual creativity.

Proposition 3B: Entrepreneurial mindset moderates the relationship between knowledge transfer and individual creativity, such that the relationship is stronger when EM is greater than when EM is lesser.

Knowledge Application

Beyond knowledge transfer, knowledge must be applied for creative thinking to be fully manifested. Lim and Hernandez (2007) allude to knowledge application promoting engagement in problem-solving and creativity. Datta (2007) explains that knowledge application goes beyond exploration and extraction of data for creative venturing, and focuses on exploitation of knowledge into creativity and innovations, and their subsequent diffusion for appropriation and reuse. Therefore, knowledge application is most geared toward action as it reflects the actual use of the knowledge to spawn creativity.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) could be an important measure of the way a firm is organized- one that enhances the performance benefit of a firm's knowledge-based resources by focusing attention on the utilization of these resources to discover and exploit opportunities (Li, Liu, Wang, Li, & Guo, 2009). EO is a firm-level construct, referring to the organization's strategic course as regards entrepreneurial aspects of decision-making styles, such as taking calculated risks, being innovative, and being proactive (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Thus, it is similar to the individual-level construct, entrepreneurial mindset, which, like EO, should also play a significant role in the application of knowledge to discern and pursue opportunities. This knowledge application process should also help foster creativity, which can be an asset in terms of having the needed insight to detect these opportunities. The following propositions reflect the associations put forward among knowledge application, EM, and individual creativity:

Proposition 4A: Knowledge application is positively related to individual creativity.

Proposition 4B: Entrepreneurial mindset moderates the relationship between knowledge application and individual creativity, such that the relationship is stronger when EM is greater than when EM is lesser.

Figure 1 depicts the proposed relationships among the constructs being explored. It is a conceptual model that illustrates the influence of knowledge management, including the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application, on individual creativity. The moderating effect of an entrepreneurial mindset on the knowledge management-individual creativity relationship is also conveyed.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

METHODOLOGY

A research questionnaire will be mailed to employees in the marketing, new product development, and research and development departments of several large organizations in the southern region of the United States. The sample size for the study will be determined using Cochran's formula (Cochran, 1977).

Measures of individual creativity, knowledge management, and entrepreneurial mindset will be used in this research. For creativity, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) in Kim (2006) will be the measuring instrument used. This instrument, developed by Dr. E. Paul Torrance in 1966, is probably the most widely used in research as well as in practice (Anastasi, 1988). To measure entrepreneurial mindset, a modified instrument that incorporates items from the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation Scale (EAO) in Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, and Hunt (1991) will be used. While knowledge management continues to gain popularity as a corporate strategy, the acceptance of standardized KM assessment approaches has lagged (Grossman, 2006). None of the knowledge management instruments is suitable for fully capturing the elements discussed in this manuscript (creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and application). Thus, an instrument will be designed to measure KM, based on these components. The instruments for entrepreneurial mindset and knowledge management will both be pre-tested for content validity using a panel of subject matter experts. Then, a pilot study will be conducted to establish reliability.

Two analytical techniques will be employed to test the proposed relationships. First, multiple regression analysis will determine if knowledge management is a significant predictor of individual creativity. Second, moderated regression analysis will test for significant interaction effects to determine if entrepreneurial mindset moderates the relationship between knowledge management and individual creativity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In an organization, knowledge may be developed over time through effective knowledge management practices. These practices include knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application. In light of the literature reviewed, it is reasonable to suggest that each of these components should influence an individual's creativity level by enabling the generation, acquisition, sharing, and utilization of knowledge, which can instigate original, resourceful ideas. The relationship between knowledge management and creativity, however, should be strengthened by an individual's entrepreneurial mindset which determines how he/she seeks, identifies, pursues, and exploits the opportunities to be creative.

Pina e Cunha (2007) mentions the possibility of deep knowledge developing over the years and tending to lead to "lucky" discoveries. However, as Louis Pasteur stated, this chance only favors the prepared mind (Beveridge, 1957). Thus, effective knowledge management can be a means of knowledge development, and may provide opportunities for new discoveries as well as play a role in the level of creativity an individual possesses. Nevertheless, an entrepreneurial mindset further prepares the individual by allowing him/her to anticipate, recognize, and take advantage of these opportunities when they arise.

IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE INQUIRY

Knowledge management is a process that comprises a number of components, and it is reasonable to suggest that one or more components may be more influential than the others as regards the promotion of creativity. Thus, it would be worthwhile to determine which component of the knowledge management process (creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, or application) is most pertinent or influential to the increase of individual creativity. In this way, for best results in organizations, managers can focus most on developing and implementing the systems that facilitate and promote that component of the knowledge management process within the organization.

Also, longitudinal studies should be conducted to incorporate the time factor when researching the effect of knowledge management on individual creativity. It takes time for people to attain, internalize, and employ new knowledge to furnish creative solutions (Weisberg, 1999). Therefore, influences of knowledge management on individual creativity may be significantly distinguishable only after some time has elapsed.

A contradicting, yet interesting notion is knowledge as a hindrance to creativity. Weisberg (1999) mentioned the assumption that too much experience can leave one "in the ruts," so that one cannot go beyond stereotyped responding. This may be a budding problem to organizations, which profit from the creativity of their employees, and therefore, it warrants further research. Organizations need to recognize when their workers require additional knowledge, as well as discern when to avoid "spoon-feeding" employees and to allow them, instead, to use and build on what they already know to unleash their creative potential.

In addition, effort should be geared toward exploring the possibility of developing or increasing entrepreneurial mindset/spirit in individuals, and attempting to discover the most effective means by which this undertaking can be accomplished. If an entrepreneurial mindset does positively influence individual creativity, and the former can indeed be developed, organizations may invest in ways to cultivate the entrepreneurial orientation of their employees, so that they can reap the benefits of the creative solutions generated.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

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

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Arthur, J., & Huntley, C. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159-1170.

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169-175.

Beveridge, W. (1957). The Art of Scientific Investigation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.

Chaveerug, A., & Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Learning orientation, innovation capability, and organizational performance in Thai audit firms: Moderating effects of organization climate and uncertainty environment. Review of Business Research, 8(2), 92-102.

Chich-Jen, S., Wang, I., & Fu-Jin, W. (2009). The relationships among cross-cultural management, learning organization, and organizational performance in multinationals. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 37(1), 15-30.

Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Chou, S. (2005). Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms, and knowledge storage/retrieval capabilities. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 453-465.

Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Covin, J., & Miles, M. (1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47-63.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56.

Datta, P. (2007). An agent-mediated knowledge-in-motion model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 287-311.

De Miranda, P., Aranha, J., & Zardo, J. (2009). Creativity: People, environment and culture, the key elements in its understanding and interpretation. Science & Public Policy, 36(7), 523-535.

Dyduch, W. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship measurement for improving organizational performance. Journal of Economics & Management, 4, 15-40.

Fentem, A. C., Dumas, A., & McDonnell, J. (1998). Evolving spatial representations to support innovation and the communication of strategic knowledge. Knowledge-Based Systems, 11(7), 417-428.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Garcia-Morales, V.J., Matias-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008). Influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(2), 188-212.

Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 303-322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grossman, M. (2006). An overview of knowledge management assessment approaches. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 8(2), 242-247.

Hack, L. (2003). Even if there is a 'second wave' of the 'New Economy'. Concepts & Transformation, 8(1), 101-116.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989.

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.

Li, Y., Liu, X., Wang, L., Li, M., & Guo, H. (2009). How entrepreneurial orientation moderates the effects of knowledge management on innovation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(6), 645-660.

Lim, S., & Hernandez, P. (2007). The WebQuest: An illustration of instructional technology implementation in MFT training. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 29(3), 163-175.

McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Min-Huei, C. (2004). An investigation of the relationship of organizational structure, employee s personality and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 428-431.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pablo, A. L., & Javidan, M. (2004). Mergers and acquisitions: Creating integrative knowledge. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Pina e Cunha, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship as decision making: Rational, intuitive and improvisational approaches. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15(1), 1-20.

Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (1997). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133-151.

Robinson, P., Stimpson, D., Huefner, J., & Hunt, H. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 15(4), 13-31.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933-958.

Song, M., van der Bij, H., & Weggeman, M. (2005). Determinants of the level of knowledge application: A knowledge-based and information-processing perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), 430-444.

Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.

Wei, X., & Xie, F. (2008). Knowledge management processes and innovation: An empirical analysis of firms in software cluster. International Journal of Human Resource Development & Management, 8(1/2), 25-42.

Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Whittington, J.L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and task design: independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings, K1-K5.

Zahra, S., & Covin, J. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58.

Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422.

Simone T. A. Phipps, Macon State College

Leon C. Prieto, Savannah State University