Evaluation system for factors affecting creativity in the Lithuanian Armed Forces/ Kurybiskuma veikianciu veiksniu vertinimo sistema lietuvos kariuomeneje.
Raudeliuniene, Jurgita ; Meidute, Ieva ; Martinaitis, Giedrius 等
1. Introduction
Due to the process of Globalization and increase of
organizations' dynamics and importance of knowledge management
during the last decades, organizational success is closely connected
with creativity and innovation; hence, nowadays economy is referred to
as the knowledge and creativity economy. Recently, it was admitted that
the maintenance of the long-term competitive advantages mostly depends
on the level of creativity in organizations, whereas the motivation for
creativity and the results of this activity could be significant not
just to individuals alone but also to organizations, certain regions and
even countries. Although creativity is usually connected with business
organizations, its development could also be useful for such
public-sector organizations as, for example, the Lithuanian Armed
Forces; therefore, in the Lithuanian Military Doctrine, the motivation
for creative thinking is identified as one of the objectives.
Organizations' managers and employees responsible for decisions in
knowledge management, taking into consideration the importance of
creativity for such processes as new product (or service) development
and acquisition of long-term competitive advantages, determine a goal:
to stimulate the creativity of certain employees and the whole
organization in order to develop products (or services) that are hard
for competitors to imitate. In order to achieve this goal, it is
required both to have a good understanding of the phenomenon of
creativity and manage to identify factors affecting creativity, as well
as methods for evaluating them.
After recognizing creativity as a core factor affecting
organizations' innovation and competitiveness, researchers and
practitioners have paid a particular attention to the investigation of
this sophisticated phenomenon in their studies. The studies have
indicated that creativity is not an innate human quality but a developed
human ability; therefore, in the scientific papers, a considerable
attention is paid to the identification of factors affecting creativity.
During these studies, a set of factors affecting creativity, which could
be applied to stimulate creativity at different levels: individual,
group, organizational, or country, was estimated. However, in recent
scientific papers, the process of the identification of factors
affecting creativity is emphasised more than the process of the
identification of methods required for a comprehensive evaluation of
interrelated factors affecting creativity. Consequently, organizations
seeking to stimulate creativity are facing the problem of how to develop
and select for the evaluation an expedient subset of factors affecting
creativity, the implementation of which would lead to the effective
results achieved in organizations' innovation development
processes.
The object of the research, presented in the article, is the
identification and evaluation of factors affecting creativity in the
Lithuanian Armed Forces. The aim of the article is to present the system
for evaluation of factors affecting creativity adapted to the Lithuanian
Armed Forces. Presenting the problems connected with the phenomenon of
creativity and its significance, and structuring the factors affecting
creativity, theoretical methods of analysis, comparison and
generalisation are applied. Expert and multi-criteria methods for
evaluation are used for a comprehensive identification of creativity
factors.
2. Evaluation of factors affecting creativity
2.1. Theoretical evaluation aspects of factors affecting creativity
The significance of creativity as an extraordinary human quality
was noticed many years ago but, during a long period of time, it was
regarded as an exceptional and highly rare ability acquired by birth; in
other words, creativity was considered as a God-given talent.
During the 6th and 7th decades of the last century, the phenomenon
of creativity was investigated by various scientists. Even in early
studies, it was already estimated that creativity and genius are not
mystical human qualities. Investigating the activity of creative
geniuses, T. Edison has declared that geniuses' inventions are
achieved by 99 per cent of perspiration and 1 per cent of inspiration
(Titus 2007) and, by declaring that, he confirmed J. W. Goethe's
saying that genius is innate diligence. According to the studies, it was
found out that creativity as human quality can be developed and trained
as the result of continuous practices and special techniques and methods
applied. Hence, this phenomenon has become the object of studies of the
researchers of various scientific fields.
Creativity is a complicated and complex phenomenon; therefore, it
is investigated and interpreted by various scientific disciplines, such
as psychology, social psychology, sociology, adult education,
organizational behaviour studies, knowledge management and etc. The
reasons mentioned have resulted in the absence of a universal definition
for creativity, and so authors have provided a variety of definitions in
their works (Simon 2005; Watson 2007), describing creativity as, for
example, a production of novel, useful ideas in various human
activities; a process of persuasion, as people become creative in so far
as they are able to persuade others to be recognized as creative; a
process consisting of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps
in knowledge, missing elements and etc., making guesses and formulating
hypotheses about these deficiencies, measuring, testing, re-testing and
possibly modifying these guesses and hypotheses and, finally,
communicating the results.
Taking into consideration the variety of creativity concepts and
theories, explaining it, all of these approaches and theories could be
systematized. M. H. Chen has systematized and identified four approaches
to creativity, namely the evolutionary approach, the cross-disciplinary
science approach, the social system approach and the social network
approach. The evolutionary approach to creativity identifies creativity
as a social process which is characterized by volatility and certain
selection process and is caused by human preferences, surrounding
factors and socialization. According to the cross-disciplinary science
approach, creativity is viewed as a complex phenomenon, extending the
limits of psychological knowledge, which cannot be explained by a single
discipline and, therefore, must be studied comprehensively, applying
such disciplines as sociology, organizational theory, economic theory,
metrology and social anthropology. Employing the disciplines mentioned,
such aspects as environment, culture, experience, knowledge and skills
must be taken into account. According to the social system approach,
creativity, in social context, is considered as a result of the
interaction between the following three subsystems: the field (various
estimated rules and procedures), the sphere (all individuals following
the prescribed rules and procedures), and the individual. Taking into
consideration this approach, it is highly important to link creativity
to individual, group and organizational levels that interact as one huge
social system (Chen 2008).
In the discipline of Knowledge Management, creativity is connected
with the process of knowledge development. The aim of this process is to
develop new competencies, management tools, processes and products
(services) in order to create greater value for an organization and its
clients. During the process of knowledge management, the organization
must either make decisions or create knowledge within itself, or acquire
knowledge outside itself; therefore, the potential for creativity is
crucial (Probst et al. 2006).
Creativity is highly important for making strategic decisions
(Savaneviciene, Gudonavicius 2007). It is recognized that the ability to
create is mostly related to the acquisition of competitive advantages,
whereas, according to T. Levitt, the future and the utility of business,
and the maintenance of competitive advantages, depend on the degree of
creativity in organizations (Titus 2007).
In order to systematize the value of creativity, it may be
evaluated from technological, economic and cultural-artistic aspects.
From the technological side creativity is inseparable from the process
of the development of new products, ideas and technologies. In case of
the economic aspect taken into consideration, creativity is important
for turning these new ideas, products and technologies into new business
or new industries, and thus leading to creating of a significant added
value, in other words, leading to economic benefits. Cultural-artistic
aspect of creativity refers to the ability to invent new art forms,
concepts, designs and individual works of art (Suciu et al. 2009).
According to the form of display, the value of creativity could be
divided into material and non-material. In case of material aspect
involved, creative innovations are incorporated into material products.
As a result, creativity is leading to inventing products that create new
sensations (e.g., food), new styles and forms (e.g., fashion design) and
new functions (e.g., new technical tools), and to stimulating new
researches in the sectors, during which, innovations of a certain field
are developed and applied to other fields of industry. From a
non-material point, creativity plays an important role in the invention
of new forms of expression (e.g., visual arts), new visions (e.g., new
architecture and new urban structures) and new relations (e.g., social
interaction between different professional and social groups) and
affects life quality, that is related to social, cultural and economic
sustainability and is dependent on such aspects as migration, tolerance
and social interpersonal understanding (Suciu et al. 2009).
Creativity may be important to individuals alone, as well as to
organizations, countries and regions. On the individual level,
creativity is important, for it is the first step towards innovation at
organizational level. For organizations, creativity is important because
of value creation and acquisition of long-term competitive advantages
with their further preservation. For regions and countries, creativity
is important, for it leads to the added value creation, public welfare
and country's or region's competitiveness.
In order to evaluate creativity, it is necessary to emphasize its
value for public-sector organizations. The value of creativity for
public-sector organizations should be measured by taking into account
the target orientation of these organizations. According to the
definition of public administration provided in Article 2, paragraph (1)
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Public Administration (Zin., 1999,
No. 60-1945), the main mission of such organizations is aimed at
implementing laws and other legal acts by making administrative
decisions, controlling the implementation of laws and other regulatory
enactments, providing administrative services stipulated in laws,
administering the provision of public services and carrying out the
internal administration of entities of public administration. Taking
into consideration the objectives mentioned, creativity could be useful
to public sector organizations when making administrative decisions
related to the improvement of quality of the provision of administrative
services, in order to provide a new form of the existing services and
create new services (e.g., the Single Window Principle), and ensuring
the efficient internal administration of the organization.
It is highly important for the organizations seeking to motivate
creativity of their employees to identify factors affecting creativity,
in order to take these factors into consideration when developing
reasonable decisions related to the organization's innovative
activity.
Since there is no universal theory explaining the phenomenon of
creativity, and there are numerous multiple approaches, different
authors, in their works, mention different factors affecting creativity.
Such variety of different factors mentioned makes it complicated to
understand the phenomenon of creativity; therefore, it could be
appropriate to take into account R. Ginevicius' observation that,
when dealing with a complex phenomenon, the primary goal is not
searching for relations between the factors describing it, but grouping
them together according to certain characteristics (Ginevicius 2007).
There could be distinguished three main groups of factors affecting
creativity: of the individual level, of the organizational level and of
the external environment level. The first group consists of factors
directly related to the individual's competencies (individual level
competencies). The factors of the second group are related to the
organization's competencies (organizational level competencies).
Finally, the third group consists of factors related to the
organization's external environment (external factors affecting
creativity).
Since creativity is defined as the ability to create new knowledge,
factors affecting creativity related to individual and organizational
level competencies could be divided into the subgroups, according to the
classification of competencies. This division is based on the fact that
competence is usually defined as an attribute of knowledge or skills
describing the employee's ability to perform certain tasks, or the
organization's ability to carry out certain activities.
In their studies, J. Martinkiene and A. Stoniene distinguish the
following competencies: personal, social, professional, managerial and
methodological (Martinkiene 2009; Stoniene et al. 2009). Since
creativity occurs at individual and organization levels, the
above-mentioned competencies can also occur at individual and
organizational levels. Personal competencies include: attitudes,
personal values, the motivation for self-organization and reflection,
and personal qualities (Jociene 2007; Adamoniene, Ruibyte 2010).
Social competencies include the following abilities: to
communicate, to state the opinion and express thoughts, to persuade, to
motivate, to coordinate, to resolve conflicts, to work in team, and to
be able to create a favourable environment (Jociene 2007; Martinkiene
2009; Adamoniene, Ruibyte 2010).
Professional competencies include: special knowledge and abilities
at a field of professional activity, process and technology skills,
market and competitor's skills, production and service skills
(Staliuniene 2009).
Managerial competencies are related to the following abilities: to
manage professional field and organization, to communicate effectively,
to listen, to allocate tasks effectively, and to work in team
(Martinkiene 2009; Butkeviciene, Vaidelyte 2009).
Methodological competencies are closely related to professional
competencies, supplementing them, and are defined as: procedural skills,
abilities to apply appropriate methods and techniques, when dealing with
different contexts, and abilities to accomplish tasks regardless of
their professional content (Jociene 2007; Adamoniene, Ruibyte 2010).
Personal competencies (at individual level) are characterized by
such factors affecting creativity as: motivation (Pierce et al. 2003;
Titus 2007; Chang, Chiang 2008; Galia 2008; Zhou et al. 2008;
Zabielaviciene 2009), personal qualities (Raja, Johns 2010), acuteness
(Laumenskaite, Vasiliauskas 2006; Titus 2007), cognitive flexibility
(Titus 2007) , curiosity (lust for learning) (Choi et al. 2009),
perseverance (Ganusauskaite, Liesionis 2008; Choi et al. 2009),
confidence (Ganusauskaite, Liesionis 2008), openness (Homan et al. 2008;
Jensen, Beckmann 2009), playfulness (Ganusauskaite, Liesionis 2008) ,
intellectual abilities (Karkockiene, Butkiene 2005; Kobe, Goller 2009),
and creative abilities (Titus 2007; Choi et al. 2009).
Social competencies (at individual level) include such factors
affecting creativity as communication skills, interpersonal
understanding, cooperation skills, the ability to create an appropriate
environment, resistance to criticism and failure, and the ability to
learn (Jociene 2007; Martinkiene 2009; Adamoniene, Ruibyte 2010).
Professional competencies (at individual level) include such
factors affecting creativity as existing knowledge structure (Titus
2007) and work experience (Lorenz, Lundvall 2010).
Managerial competencies (at individual level) include the following
factors affecting creativity: leadership experience (Chang, Chiang
2008), leadership characteristics (Ferrin et al. 2007; Choi et al.
2009), and leader's management style (Malovikas 2002; Watson 2007;
Chang, Chiang 2008; Choi et al. 2009; Wang, Rode 2010).
Methodological competencies (at individual level) include the
following factors affecting creativity: analytical thinking, individual
work skills, teamwork skills, the ability to submit proposals, and
decision-making skills (Jociene 2007; Adamoniene, Ruibyte 2010).
According to scientists, personal competencies (at organizational
level) are characterized by the following factors affecting creativity:
task (work) characteristics (Watson 2007; Choi et al. 2009; Raja, Johns
2010), the workload (Verbeke et al. 2008), the organization's
culture (Alves et al. 2007; Chang, Chiang 2008; Atkociuniene et al.
2009; Choi et al. 2009), the organization's environment (McFadzen,
O'Loughlin 2000; Chang, Chiang 2008; Atkociuniene et al. 2009; Choi
et al. 2009; Wang, Rode 2010), routine behaviour (Ohly et al. 2006;
Alves et al. 2007), freedom of actions (Isaksen et al. 2001; Choi et al.
2009), shared goals (Alves et al. 2007), shared values (Alves et al.
2007; Vveinhardt, Nikaite 2008), the organization's motivation
(Watson 2007), and the access to resources and technologies (McFadzen,
O'Loughlin 2000; Isaksen et al. 2001; Zhou et al. 2008).
Social competencies (at organizational level) include such factors
affecting creativity as characteristics of the co-workers (Choi et al.
2009), interpersonal trust (Isaksen et al. 2001; Choi et al. 2009), risk
tolerance (Isaksen et al. 2001; Choi et al. 2009), organizational
support (encouragement) (Verbeke et al. 2008; Choi et al. 2009), and
cooperation and discussions (Isaksen et al. 2001; Alves et al. 2007;
Jensen, Beckmann 2009; Fliaster, Schloderer 2010).
Professional competencies (at organizational level) include such
factors affecting creativity as professional coordination practice and
the organization's knowledge of the latest developments and work
methods (Staliuniene 2009).
According to scientists, managerial competencies (at organizational
level) include such factors affecting creativity as human resource
management practice (Isaksen et al. 2001; Zhou et al. 2008),
organizational flexibility (Raipa 2001; Alves et al. 2007),
employee's participation in management (Huang 1997), evaluation
system (Alves et al. 2007; Chang, Chiang 2008; Wang, Rode 2010),
organizational structure (Isaksen et al. 2001; Alves et al. 2007; Chang,
Chiang 2008), and organizational strategy (Alves et al. 2007; Melnikas,
Smaliukiene 2007; Wang, Rode 2010).
Methodological competencies (at organizational level) include: the
organization's ability to manage innovations, the ability to adapt
to changing situations, the ability to organize work activities,
project-management skills, the ability to create complex projects, and
problem-solving skills (Jakubavicius et al. 2003; Watson 2007).
The third group of factors affecting creativity consists of factors
related to the organization's external environment. According to
the model of distribution of factors, suggested by J. Alves, external
factors affecting creativity can be divided into two subgroups: factors
related to the institutional support, and factors related to the sets of
values and norms (Alves et al. 2007).
Factors related to the institutional support are: labour market
mobility (Lorenz et al. 2010), education system (Lorenz, Lundvall 2010;
Spencer 2011), innovations in residential areas (Walcott 2002; Sands,
Reese 2008), economic diversity in residential areas (Desrochers,
Leppala 2010), university system (Florida 2005), cluster system
(Schoales 2006; Jucevicius 2009), public investment in education and
research, and tax incentives for scientists and their researches
(Schoales 2006).
Factors related to the sets of values and norms are: public culture
(Glaveanu 2010), tolerance (Sands, Reese 2008), local environment's
tolerance, diversity and size of the residential area (Spencer 2011),
revolutionary (major) changes (Livingstone et al. 2002), competition,
and social mobility (Pruskus 2004; Simon 2005; Klimasauskiene 2007).
Creativity is considered as a complicated and complex social phenomenon,
as it is influenced by many interrelated factors acting in opposite
directions. According to V. Podvezko, multi-criteria methods for
evaluation, that make the basis of quantitative evaluation of any
complex phenomenon expressed by a number of criteria, have been
effectively used for a comprehensive evaluation of complex quantities
(Podvezko 2008). According to R. Ginevicius, multi-criteria evaluation
of complex and complicated phenomena is usually carried out in the
following steps: formulation of the research problem and statement of
the research objects and aims; compilation of the list of factors
affecting the considered phenomenon; formation of the system of the
factors affecting the considered phenomenon; quantification
(identification of the criteria) of factors affecting the considered
phenomenon; formalization of factors affecting the considered
phenomenon, and determination and normalization of the criteria values;
selection of the model for determination of the significance of factors
affecting the considered phenomenon, and determination of the
significance of factors; selection of the method for joining the
criteria into the integrated value; joining the criteria into the
integrated value; decision-making concerning the improvement of the
state of the considered phenomenon (Ginevicius, Podvezko 2005).
According to R. Ginevicius and V. Podvezko (2003), the aim of this
method is: first, to determine partial criteria describing a particular
phenomenon; next, to calculate their values and weights; and last, to
join them into the integrated value, which integrates a set of partial
criteria. The integrated value is calculated using the following
formula:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (1)
where [[omega].sub.i] is the significance of partial criteria; and
[R.sub.i] is the normalized values of partial criteria.
As the influence of the particular criteria, describing the
research object, on the considered phenomenon is different, it is highly
important to determine the significance of the criteria. The methods for
the determination of the significance of criteria could be divided into
objective and subjective. In case if the subjective method of the
determination of the significance of criteria is involved, criteria
weights are evaluated by experts; and if the objective method is used,
criteria weights are evaluated by means of mathematical calculations
carried out on the basis of objective information (Podvezko 2008).
When determining criteria weights according to the scale of
measurement of criteria weights, scales of measurement with various
intervals (e.g., [0, 1], [0, 100], and etc.), ranks, points and per
cents are used. The following scale of criteria significance
measurement, with interval [0, 1], is used most commonly (Ginevicius,
Podvezko 2005, 2008): n
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (2)
Summing up the results of scientific research, it can be stated
that creativity is a complicated and complex phenomenon that is affected
by many interrelated factors. Factors affecting creativity have been
identified in scientific papers, and may be divided into three groups
according to their specific characteristics. The first and the second
groups consist of factors directly related to individual and
organizational level competencies.
The third group consists of factors related to the
organization's external environment. Complex multi-criteria
evaluation method is suitable for the evaluation of factors affecting
creativity, as all factors cannot be expressed by a single evaluation
criterion; but when this method is employed, the number of evaluation
criteria is not restricted, that results in opportunity to evaluate the
integrated partial criteria of both external and internal factors,
determine the significance of certain criteria to evaluation results,
and compare the values of the partial criteria with each other.
2.2. Identification of factors affecting creativity in the
Lithuanian Armed Forces
The identification of factors affecting creativity in the
Lithuanian Armed Forces was carried out by employing the methods for
expert and multi-criteria evaluation. These methods were used in order
to identify the set of factors affecting creativity in the following two
structural military units of the Lithuanian Armed Forces: the Air
Defence Battalion of the Lithuanian Air Forces (hereinafter: ADB) and
the Air Base of the Lithuanian Air Forces (hereinafter: AB).
ADB personnel consist of 214 soldiers, civil servants and
employees, working under employment contracts (hereinafter: personnel).
AB personnel consist of 428 employees. The above mentioned military
units were selected for the research, because they are the only National
Defence System units engaged in the execution of specific,
characteristic only of them, missions, i.e., ADB's primary mission
is the airspace defence, and AB's primary missions are air
operations' execution and support, and keeping Siauliai city's
military airport fully functional. Due to the above-mentioned
specificity of missions of the units and the fact that air defence
specialists and air operation and support specialists are not trained at
the National Defence System educational institutions, the efficiency of
the process of knowledge formation, and creativity, as the main element
of this process, are essential for both ADB and AB.
On the basis of the analysis of the scientific researches, the
initial list of factors affecting creativity was compiled, with 77
factors affecting creativity subject to expert evaluation. A commission
of 6 ADB and 6 AB experts, who were selected according to the following
two criteria: relevance to the process of knowledge formation, and
experience (not less than five years) at the process of knowledge
formation, was formed. The interval [0, 1] was used in order to
determine the criteria weights. Applying the method of the determination
of the significance of the criteria, 43 of the 77 initial criteria were
evaluated as negligible.
After the identification of factors affecting creativity has been
carried out, it was estimated that the creativity of the organization
members depends on individual level competencies, organizational level
competencies and external factors (Table 1).
According to the experts, the following factors affecting
creativity were considered as belonging to individual level: personal
competencies (motivation, personal qualities, cognitive flexibility,
perseverance, intellectual abilities, and creative abilities); social
competencies (communication skills, interpersonal understanding,
cooperation skills, and ability to create a favourable environment);
professional competencies (work experience, professional knowledge,
professional knowledge of the latest developments and professional
techniques, and foreign work experience); managerial competencies
(leadership experience and leader's management style); and
methodological competencies (analytical thinking, teamwork skills, and
decision-making skills).
The following factors affecting creativity were considered as
belonging to organizational level: personal competencies
(organization's environment, motivation, and access to resources);
social competencies (interpersonal trust, organizational support,
cooperation, and discussions); managerial competencies (evaluation
system and organizational strategy); and methodological competencies
(project-management skills and problem-solving skills).
The following factors affecting creativity were considered as
belonging to external level: institutional support (education system and
public investment in education and research); and sets of values and
norms (public culture and local environment's tolerance).
3. Evaluation system for factors affecting creativity
On the basis of carried out scientific and practical researches, a
multi-level evaluation criteria system is suggested for evaluating
factors affecting creativity. This evaluation system is based on the
multifaceted approach, taking into account such quantitative and
qualitative criteria that characterize factors affecting creativity
comprehensively and precondition their evaluation in the Lithuanian
Armed Forces. The evaluation criteria are grouped together in a form of
a set of the initial criteria, according to their content and
interrelation. The multi-level system is employed in order to achieve
more objective and explicit evaluation and precondition the evaluation
of the aspects of major factors affecting creativity on the basis of the
hierarchical model. In order to maximize the application flexibility of
the evaluation system in the Lithuanian Armed Forces, the experts have
considered the specifics of the organization's activity, when
estimating weights and values of the criteria.
The following sequence of the evaluation of factors affecting
creativity is suggested: estimation of the need for the evaluation of
factors affecting creativity; compilation of a list of the criteria;
determination of the criteria weights and values; calculation of a value
of the integrated criterion of the evaluation; and decision-making and
implementation (Fig. 1).
Estimating the Need for the Evaluation of Factors Affecting
Creativity. The need for the evaluation of factors affecting creativity
appears when an organization states an objective to stimulate creativity
at individual and organization levels.
Compiling the List of the Evaluation Criteria of Factors Affecting
Creativity. In the process of analysing scientific literature and
collaborating with experts, all essential factors affecting creativity
are included into the list of factors affecting creativity. The
criteria, added to the list, are grouped according to certain
characteristics, and the structured hierarchical system of the criteria,
subject to expert evaluation, is formed.
Determining the Weights of the Evaluation Criteria of Factors
Affecting Creativity. The weights of criteria of factors affecting
creativity are determined according to expert evaluation. The
determination of the weights of the criteria illustrates the
significance of each criterion in comparison to other criteria. In order
to create preconditions favourable for more objective and explicit
evaluation, the weights of the criteria must be differentiated according
to the specifics of the organization's activity. The scale of
measurement with interval [0, 1] is suggested to use when determining
the weights of the criteria, i.e., the total value of the weights of the
criteria of each stage should be equal to one. The weights of the
criteria of the evaluation are determined for each level of the
criteria, starting with the initial criteria of the evaluation.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Determining the Values of the Evaluation Criteria of Factors
Affecting Creativity. Factors affecting creativity are evaluated
according to the initial quantitative and qualitative criteria.
Qualitative criteria are measured by using a scale with the interval [1,
5], where the value "1" of the evaluation criterion means
"negative", "2" means "insufficient",
"3" means "average", "4" means
"good", and "5" means "high". Other
criteria are measured quantitatively, by providing a ration and an
average of the measured values, or expressed in absolute values. In
order to illustrate the comparability of the criteria values (expressed
in various units of measurement), they could be normalized by using a
scale with the interval [1, 5] (in which "1" means
"risk", "2" means "insufficient security",
"3" means "security", "4" means
"advantage", and "5" means "leadership"),
or by applying other methods for the normalization (adapted by
Chlivickas, Raudeliuniene 2007).
Calculating the Value of the Integrated Criterion of Factors
Affecting Creativity. In order to calculate the integrated criterion V
of factors affecting creativity, a multi-level evaluation system is
employed (Fig. 2) (adapted by Chlivickas, Raudeliuniene 2007).
The following are the first stage criteria of the evaluation of
factors affecting creativity: [V.sup.k.sub.11]--the initial criteria of
individual level personal competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.12]--the initial
criteria of individual level social competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.13]--the
initial criteria of individual level professional competencies;
[V.sup.k.sub.14]--the initial criteria of individual level managerial
competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.15]--the initial criteria of individual level
methodological competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.21]--the initial criteria of
organizational level personal competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.22]--the
initial criteria of organizational level social competencies;
[V.sup.k.sub.23]--the initial criteria of organizational level
managerial competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.24]--the initial criteria of
organizational level methodological competencies; [V.sup.k.sub.31]--the
initial criteria of external level related to institutional support;
[V.sup.k.sub.32]--the initial criteria of external level related to the
sets of values and norms.
The following are the partial integrated criteria (of the second
stage) of the evaluation of factors affecting creativity:
[V.sub.11]--the partial criterion of individual level personal
competencies; [V.sub.12]--the partial criterion of individual level
social competencies; [V.sub.13]--the partial criterion of individual
level professional competencies; [V.sub.14]--the partial criterion of
individual level managerial competencies; [V.sub.15]--the partial
criterion of individual level methodological competencies;
[V.sub.21]--the partial criterion of organizational level personal
competencies; [V.sub.22]--the partial criterion of organizational level
social competencies; [V.sub.23]--the partial criterion of organizational
level managerial competencies; [V.sub.24]--the partial criterion of
organizational level methodological competencies; [V.sub.31]--the
partial criterion of external level related to institutional support;
[V.sub.32]--the partial criterion of external level related to the sets
of values and norms.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The following are the partial integrated criteria (of the third
stage) of the evaluation of factors affecting creativity: [V.sub.1]--the
partial criterion of individual level; [V.sub.2]--the partial criterion
of organizational level; [V.sub.3]--the partial criterion of external
level.
The integrated criterion V' of factors affecting creativity is
equal to a total of the summation of the values of the initial (of the
first stage) and the integrated partial criteria (of the second and the
third stage) of factors affecting creativity, [V.sup.k.sub.ij],
multiplied by their weights:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (3)
where [[omega].sub.i] is the weight of the i-th partial integrated
criterion (of the third stage); [[omega].sub.ij] is the weight of the
j-th partial integrated criterion (of the second stage);
[[omega].sup.k.sub.ij] is the weight of the k-th initial criterion (of
the first stage); [V.sup.k.sub.ij] is the value of the initial
criterion; i, j, k refer to the indices of the criteria of the
particular stages; i, j,k [member of] 1,2,3, ... , n, where n stands for
the number of the criteria of a particular stage; the total value of the
weights of the criteria of each stage is equal to one: [MATHEMATICAL
EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
Decision-making Concerning the Improvement of the Situation of
Factors Affecting Creativity. When forming a decision-subset, the
largest gap between the maximum possible values of the initial criteria
of the evaluation of factors affecting creativity and the measured
values of the initial criteria of the evaluation of factors affecting
creativity, is taken into account (adapted by Chlivickas, Raudeliuniene
2007):
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (4)
where [A.sub.i] is the largest gap between the values of the
possible largest and measured initial criteria; Ni is the normalized
value of the i-th initial criterion; [N.sup.*.sub.i] is the possible
largest normalized value of the i-th initial criterion;
[[omega].sup.k.sub.ij] is the weight of the i-th initial criterion of
the evaluation. The estimated gap is seen as areas to be resolved; in
order to eliminate them, a decision-subset is formed from the existing
one.
Implementing the Decisions Concerning the Improvement of the
Situation of Factors Affecting Creativity. The resources required for
the improvement of the system of factors affecting creativity are
identified and provided; and the measures, required for the improvement
of the system of the factors, are implemented.
Feedback. The efficiency of the measures employed to the
improvement of the system of factors affecting creativity, and a
possible application of further measures, are identified.
The proposed system for the evaluation of factors affecting
creativity is characterized by a complex evaluation, and creates
preconditions to identify the strengths and weaknesses of factors
affecting creativity and make decisions based on this identification.
4. Conclusions
Creativity is a key element in the development of knowledge that
motivates organizations to generate new ideas, develop solutions and
implement more effective processes and procedures.
Creativity is a complicated and complex phenomenon which is being
studied by various branches of science. Numerous approaches dealing with
factors affecting creativity interpret those factors differently and pay
little attention to the evaluation of them. As a result, the problem of
identifying the approach which would reflect the real situation more
explicitly and comprehensively appears. In order to resolve this
problem, expert and multi-criteria methods for evaluation were employed.
On the basis of the scientific researches, factors affecting
creativity were divided into the following three groups: of the
individual level, of the organizational level and of the external level.
The groups of the individual and the organizational level consist of
factors related to individual and organizational competencies. The group
of the external level includes factors affecting creativity related to
the institutional support, and to the sets of values and norms.
The identification of factors affecting creativity was carried out
at the Air Defence Battalion of the Lithuanian Air Forces and the Air
Base of the Lithuanian Air Forces. Applying the method of the
determination of the significance of criteria, 43 of the 77 initial
criteria were evaluated as negligible.
The system for the evaluation of factors affecting creativity, that
would allow military units of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, public- and
private-sector organizations, regions and countries to evaluate the
factors affecting creativity, was prepared.
The multi-level system for the evaluation of factors affecting
creativity, which could be applied for achieving more objective and
explicit evaluation, was suggested in order not only to identify factors
affecting creativity, but also to evaluate them comprehensively,
determine their strengths and weaknesses and, on the basis of this
evaluation, make decisions stimulating the creativity.
doi: 10.3846/16111699.2011.639797
Received 17 September 2011; accepted 07 November 2011
References
Adamoniene, R.; Ruibyte, L. 2010. Vadovu kompetenciju ugdymo
sistemos formavimo kryptys, Management Theory and Studies for Rural
Business and Infrastructure Development 5(24): 11-20.
Alves, J. C.; Marques, M. J.; Saur, I.; Marques, P. 2007.
Creativity and Innovation through Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral
Cooperation, Creativity and Innovation Management 16(1): 27-34.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00417.x
Atkociuniene, Z.; Janiuniene, E.; Matkeviciene, R.; Pranaitis, R.;
Stonkiene, M. 2009. Informacijos ir ziniu vadyba verslo organizacijoje.
Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 474 p.
Butkeviciene, E.; Vaidelyte, E. 2009. Lietuvos valstybes tarnautoju
vadybines kompetencijos, Viesoji politika ir administravimas [Public
Policy and Administration] 30: 68-81.
Chang, W. C.; Chiang, Z. H. 2008. A study on how to elevate
organizational creativity in Taiwanese design organization,
International Journal of Innovation Management 12(4): 699-723.
doi:10.1142/S1363919608002151
Chen, M. H. 2008. Employee creativity and R&D: a critical
review, Creativity and Innovation Management 17(1): 71-76.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00471.x
Chlivickas, E.; Raudeliuniene, J. 2007. Human resources potential
in the public sector: the system of evaluation, Public Administration
4(16): 44-52.
Choi, J. N.; Anderson, T. A.; Veillette, A. 2009. Contextual
inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: the insulating role
of creative ability, Group and Organization Management 34(3): 330-357.
doi:10.1177/1059601108329811
Desrochers, P.; Leppala, S. 2010. Opening up the 'Jacobs
Spillovers' black box: local diversity, creativity and the
processes underlying new combinations, Journal of Economic Geography 2:
1-21.
Ferrin, D. L.; Bligh, M. C.; Kohles, J. C. 2007. Can I trust you to
trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in
interpersonal and intergroup relationships, Group and Organization
Management 32(4): 465-499. doi:10.1177/1059601106293960
Fliaster, A.; Schloderer, F. 2010. Dyadic ties among employees:
empirical analysis of creative performance and efficiency, Human
Relations 63(10): 1513-1540. doi:10.1177/0018726710361988
Galia, F. 2008. Intrinsic--extrinsic motivations and knowledge
sharing in French firms, The Icfai Journal of Knowledge Management 4(1):
56-80.
Ganusauskaite, A.; Liesionis, V. 2008. Kurybinis procesas ir jo
potencialo skatinimas organizacijoje, Organizaciju vadyba: sisteminiai
tyrimai [Management of Organizations: Systematic Research] 48: 23-34.
Ginevicius, R. 2007. Sudetingo reiskinio strukturizuotos rodikliu
sistemos formavimas, Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business: Theory and
Practice] 8(2): 68-72.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2005. Daugiakriterinio vertinimo
rodikliu sistemos formavimas, Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business:
Theory and Practice] 6(4): 199-207.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008. Daugiakriterinio vertinimo budu
suderinamumas, Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business: Theory and
Practice] 9(1): 73-80.
Ginevicius, R.; Povezko, V. 2003. Hierarchiskai strukturizuotu
rodikliu reiksmingumo kompleksinis vertinimas, Verslas: teorija ir
praktika [Business: Theory and Practice] 4(3): 111-116.
Glaveanu, V. P. 2010. Principles for a cultural psychology of
creativity, Culture & Psychology 16(2): 147-163.
doi:10.1177/1354067X10361394
Homan, A. C.; Hollenbeck, J. R.; Humphrey, S. E.; Knippenberg, D.;
Ilgen, D. R.; Van Kleef, G. A. 2008. Facing differences with an open
mind: openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and
performance of diverse work groups, Academy of Management Journal 51(6):
1204-1222. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732995
Huang, T. C. 1997. The effect of participative management on
organizational performance: the case of Taiwan, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 8(5): 677-689.
doi:10.1080/095851997341450
Isaksen, S. G.; Lauer, K. J.; Ekvall, G.; Britz, A. 2001.
Perception of the best n worst climates for creativity: preliminary
validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire,
Creativity Research Journal 16(2): 171-184.
doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_5
Jakubavicius, A.; Strazdas, R.; Gecas, K. 2003. Inovacijos:
procesai, valdymo modeliai, galimybes. Vilnius: Lietuvos inovaciju
centras. 127 p.
Jensen, M. B.; Beckmann, S. C. 2009. Determinants of innovation and
creativity in corporate branding: findings from Denmark, Brand
Management 16(7): 468-479. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550138
Jociene, J. 2007. Bendruju kompetenciju ugdymas kaip edukologine
teorinio ir praktinio mokymo integravimo prielaida, Profesinis rengimas:
tyrimai ir realijos [Vocational Education: Research and Reality] 13:
82-89.
Jucevicius, R. 2009. Klasteriu vadovas. Prieiga per interneta:
<http://www.verslilietuva.lt/files/files/PDF/klasteriuvadovas.pdf>.
Karkockiene, D.; Butkiene, G. 2005. Studentu kurybiskumo ir
intelekto gebejimu sasajos, Psichologija [Psychology] 32: 60-73.
Klimasauskiene, D. 2007. Konkurencijos samprata ekonomikos
teorijoje, Ekonomika [Economic] 79: 109-123.
Kobe, C.; Goller, I. 2009. Assessment of product engineering
creativity, Creativity and Innovation Management 18(2): 132-138.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00514.x
Laumenskaite, E.; Vasiliauskas, A. 2006. Strateginiai pokyciai ir
savivalda organizacijoje, Pinigu studijos [Monetary Studies] 1: 23-35.
Lietuvos karine doktrina [Lithuanian military doctrine].
Patvirtinta kariuomenes vado 2010-03-10 isakymu Nr. V-193.
Lietuvos Respublikos viesojo administravimo istatymas, Zin., 1999,
Nr. 60-1945.
Livingstone, L. P.; Palich, L. E.; Carini, G. R. 2002. Promoting
creativity through the logic of contradiction, Journal of Organizational
Behavior 23: 321-326. doi:10.1002/job.140
Lorenz, E.; Lundvall, B. A. 2010. Accounting for creativity in the
European Union: a multi-level analysis of individual competence, labour
market structure, and systems of education and training, Cambridge
Journal of Economics 3: 1-26.
Malovikas, A. 2002. Kariniu vienetu kasdienines veiklos valdymo
psichologiniai aspektai. Generolo Jono Zemaicio Lietuvos karo akademija.
Vilnius. 297 p.
Martinkiene, J. 2009. Vadybiniu kompetenciju taikymas verslo
praktinio mokymo firmoje, Vadyba [Management] 1(14): 79-88.
McFadzen, E.; O'Loughlin, A. 2000. Five strategies for
improving group effectiveness, Strategic Change 9(2): 103-114.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1697(200003/04)9:2<103::AID-JSC466>3.0.CO;2-H
Melnikas, B.; Smaliukiene, R. 2007. Strateginis valdymas. Generolo
Jono Zemaicio Lietuvos karo akademija. Vilnius. 98 p.
Ohly, S.; Sonnentag, S.; Pluntke, F. 2006. Routinization, work
characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive
behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 257-279.
doi:10.1002/job.376
Pierce, W. D.; Cameron, J.; Banko, K. M. 2003. Positive effects of
rewards and performance standarts on intrinsic motivation, The
Psychological Record 53: 561-579.
Podvezko, V. 2008. Sudetingu dydziu kompleksinis vertinimas,
Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business: Theory and Practice] 9(3):
160-168.
Probst, G.; Raub, S.; Romhardt, K. 2006. Ziniu vadyba: sekmes
komponentai. Vilnius: Knygiai. 350 p.
Pruskus, V. 2004. Sociologija: teorija ir praktika. Vilnius:
Vilniaus teises ir verslo kolegija. 247 p.
Raipa, A. 2001. Socialiniai pokyciai ir modernus viesasis
administravimas, Filosofija, sociologija [Philosophy, sociology] 2:
54-62.
Raja, U.; Johns, G. 2010. The joint effects of personality and job
scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity,
Human Relations 63(7): 981-1005. doi:10.1177/0018726709349863
Sands, G.; Reese, L. A. 2008. Cultivating the creative class: and
what about Nanaimo?, Economic Development Quarterly 22(1): 8-23.
doi:10.1177/0891242407309822
Savaneviciene, A.; Gudonavicius, L. 2007. Kurybiskumo role priimant
strateginius sprendimus, Ekonomika ir vadyba [Economics and Management]
12: 636-642.
Schoales, J. 2006. Alpha clusters: creative innovation in local
economies, Economic Development Quarterly 20(2): 162-177.
doi:10.1177/0891242405285932
Simon, B. S. 2005. Intellectual property and traditional knowledge:
a psychological approach to conflicting claims of creativity in
international law, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 20: 1613-1684.
Spencer, G. M. 2011. Creative economies of scale: an agent-based
model of creativity and agglomeration, Journal of Economic Geography
11(5): 1-25.
Staliuniene, J. D. 2009. Rizikos izvalgos teorinis tyrimas vidaus
ir isores audito technologijoje, Ekonomika ir vadyba [Economics and
Management] 14: 100-107.
Stoniene, A.; Martinkiene, J.; Sakiene, H.; Romeryte-Sereikiene, R.
2009. Studentu kompetenciju tobulinimas verslo praktinio mokymo firmose,
Vadyba [Management] 14(2): 91-98.
Suciu, M. C.; Iordache, P. M.; Ivanovici, M. 2009. Creative
economy. Determinants and stakes of creativity and innovation
management. Regional ingressions, The Journal of the Faculty of
Economics--Economic 2(1): 208-212.
Titus, P. A. 2007. Applied creativity: the creative marketing
breakthrough model, Journal of Marketing Education 29(3): 62-272.
doi:10.1177/0273475307307600
Verbeke, W.; Franses, P. H.; le Blanc, A.; van Ruiten, N. 2008.
Finding the keys to creativity in AD agencies, Journal of Advertising
37(4): 121-130. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367370410
Vveinhardt, J.; Nikaite, I. 2008. Vertybiu, kaip organizacijos
kulturos elemento, poveikis viesbuciu darbo veiksmingumui, Jaunuju
mokslininku darbai 17(1): 176-186.
Walcott, S. M. 2002. Analyzing an innovative environment: San Diego
as a bioscience beachhead, Economic Development Quarterly 16(2): 99-114.
doi:10.1177/0891242402016002001
Wang, P.; Rode, J. C. 2010. Transformational leadership and
follower creativity: the moderating effects of identification with
leader and organizational klimate, Human Relations 63(8): 1105-1128.
doi:10.1177/0018726709354132
Watson, E. 2007. Who or what creates? A conceptual framework for
social creativity, Human Resource Development Review 6: 419-441.
doi:10.1177/1534484307308255
Zabielaviciene, I. 2009. Komandinio darbo specifika inovaciju
sferoje, Verslo ir teises aktualijos [Issues of Business and Law] 3:
87-103.
Zhou, J.; Shin, S. J.; Cannella, A. A. 2008. Employee
self-perceived creativity after mergers and acquisition, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 44(4): 397-421. doi:10.1177/0021886308328010
Jurgita Raudeliuniene [1], Ieva Meidute [2], Giedrius Martinaitis
[3]
[1,2] Department of Business Technologies,Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
[3] The General Jonas Zemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania, Silo
g. 5A, LT-10322 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: [1] jurgita.raudeliuniene@vgtu.lt (corresponding author);
[2] ieva.meidute@vgtu.lt; [3] giedrius.martinaitis@mil.lt
Jurgita RAUDELIUNIENE. Assoc. Prof., Dr of social sciences
(management and administration), Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Faculty of Business Management, Department of Business Technologies. Her
research interests are related with knowledge management, formation and
evaluation of competitive strategic decisions.
Ieva MEIDUTE. Assoc. Prof., Dr of technological sciences (transport
engineering), Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of
Business Management, Department of Business Technologies. Her research
interests are related with business processes management, logistics and
supply chain management.
Giedrius MARTINAITIS. Master of management and business
administration, The General Jonas Zemaitis Military Academy of
Lithuania. He is an S2 security officer at the Air Defence Battalion of
the Lithuanian Air Forces. His research interests are related with
evaluation of factors affecting creativity.
Table 1. The dentification of factors affecting creativity by applying
the method of the determination of the significance of the criteria
Partial Partial Initial criterion Criterion's
integrated integrated weight
criterion criterion
(third (second stage)
stage)
Individual Individual Motivation 0.19
level level personal Personal qualities 0.15
(0.57) competencies Cognitive flexibility 0.15
(0.32) Perseverance 0.13
Intellectual abilities 0.17
Creative abilities 0.19
Individual Communication skills 0.27
level social Interpersonal 0.21
competencies understanding
(0.20) Cooperation skills 0.24
Ability to create a 0.27
favourable environment
Individual level Work experience 0.26
professional Professional knowledge 0.29
competencies Professional knowledge 0.24
(0.21) of the latest
developments and
professional techniques
Foreign work experience 0.21
Individual level Leadership experience 0.44
managerial Leader's management 0.56
competencies style
(0.10)
Individual level Analytical thinking 0.27
methodological Teamwork skills 0.35
competencies Decision-making skills 0.38
(0.16)
Organi- Organizational Organization's 0.33
zational level personal environment
level competencies Organization's 0.37
(0.33) (0.30) motivation
Access to resources 0.30
and technologies
Organizational Interpersonal trust 0.22
level social Organizational 0.25
competencies support (encouragement)
(0.35) Cooperation 0.28
Discussions 0.25
Organizational Evaluation system 0.53
level Organizational strategy 0.47
managerial
competencies
(0.16)
Organizational Project-management 0.41
level skills
managerial Problem-solving 0.59
competencies skills
(0.19)
External External level Education system 0.50
level factors related Public investment in 0.50
(0.1) to institutional education and research
support (0.50)
External level Public culture 0.50
factors related Local environment's 0.50
to sets of values tolerance
and norms (0.50)
