Holding the helm: exploring the influence of transformational leadership on group creativity, and the moderating role of organizational learning culture.

Phipps, Simone T.A. ; Prieto, Leon C. ; Verma, Satish 等

"The organizations of the future will increasingly depend on the creativity of their members to survive. Great groups offer a new model in which the leader is an equal among Titans. In a truly creative collaboration, work is pleasure, and the only rules and procedures are those that advance the common cause" (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, researchers have been keenly interested in the enhancement of creativity in groups (Baruah & Paulus, 2008). In this era of modernization, technological advancements, and changing markets, the increased use of creativity and innovation is not just a popular topic, but a necessary focus. Groups are the building blocks of organizations, and therefore, the success of organizations depends on the ability of groups to perform their tasks effectively (Choi & Thompson, 2005) and produce creative solutions to maximize organizational competitiveness. Innovation capacity is an imperative so that organizations keep their competitive edge and survive (Miguel, Franklin, & Popadiuk, 2008).

Creativity can be promoted through effective leadership, especially transformational leadership (TFL). TFL behaviors, like the communication of an inspirational vision, encouragement and consideration, operational autonomy/freedom, challenge, and support for inventiveness and originality, mimic some of the factors associated with innovation and creativity in organizations (Elkins & Keller, 2003). Waldman and Bass (1991) mentioned the importance of TFL at different phases of the innovation process, and Jung (2000) found creativity in groups to be higher under transformational leadership, with participants in the TFL condition generating significantly greater numbers of unique ideas than their counterparts in the transactional leadership condition.

Creativity can also be encouraged through an organizational culture that endorses learning. Learning is seen as a purposive quest to retain and improve competitiveness, productivity, and innovativeness (Dodgson, 1993). Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008) found that TFL and support for innovation related positively to team innovation only in a climate of excellence. The results also revealed a significant interaction between support for innovation and climate for excellence, implying that the relationship between support for innovation and team innovation is moderated by climate for excellence. Support for innovation reflects TFL behaviors, and team innovation is relevant to group creativity. In fact, Jung (2000) alluded to creativity inducing innovation. Also, high climate for excellence is pertinent to OLC because a commitment to learning helps foster excellence. Purington, Butler, and Gale (2003) discussed Rockwell Collins, a leading provider of innovative communication and aviation electronics solutions, and explained that in order for a company to achieve its desired level of excellence, it needs to focus on becoming an authentic learning organization.

TFL is a style of leadership that helps to generate positive change or "transform" organizations through mutual engagement of both leaders and employees. This article will explore one of the possible "transformations" of TFL, namely group creativity (GC). It also suggests that organizational learning culture (OLC) would aid organizational transformation stemming from increased creativity, which in turn, generates further transformation. Thus, TFL, OLC, and GC all play a role in the transformation of the organization.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Since its debut, transformational leadership has received a great deal of attention. TFL was pioneered by Burns (1978), who defined it as a reinforcing process between the leader and the follower, elevating them to higher planes of motivation and morality. TFL was developed further by Bass (1985) and Bass and Avolio (1995). It is a concept that embraces mutual engagement while attempting to achieve a common goal. It transforms followers and organizations through the promotion of selfless ideals that encourage performance beyond expectations.

TFL includes four components, namely idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC) (Bass, 1985; Bass, 1997; Bass & Riggio, 2006). II encompasses charisma, and is associated with the leader's personification of a role model/exemplar. IM refers to the transformational leader's articulation of an enticing and meaningful vision to be shared and targeted. IS involves the encouragement of followers to think inventively and challenge the status quo, and IC includes concern for the followers' needs.

TFL has been found to contribute to organizational success in many ways. Keller (1992) discovered that TFL predicted higher project quality and enhanced budget/schedule performance, and Waldman and Atwater (1992) determined that TFL was positively related to project effectiveness. TFL was found to be related to increased organizational performance (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007), increased employee motivation (Bono & Judge, 2003), and increased employee commitment, loyalty, and satisfaction (Bass & Riggio, 2006). A significant positive relationship was also discovered between TFL and creativity (Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai 1998; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). This paper will further the research concerning TFL by considering its contribution to GC, and investigating the moderating effect of a culture of organizational learning.

GROUP CREATIVITY

In the psychological literature, the concept of creativity usually refers to the production, by individuals or groups, of ideas and solutions considered not only original and innovative but also useful and appropriate (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lupart, 1999). The potential of groups to engage in rich exploration, discovery, and innovation in various fields has motivated many researchers, leaders, and field practitioners to promote and study group creativity (e.g., Shneiderman et al., 2006).

An overwhelming amount of the literature argues that groups are bad for creativity (Paulus, Nakui, & Putman, 2006) in that they appear to reduce motivation to share divergent ideas out of concern for peer evaluation of member's ideas. The classic research on groupthink showed that groups may hinder the sharing of perspectives that go against the dominant group view (Janis, 1982). There is also a propensity for groups to exchange information or ideas that they have in common rather than unique information (Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003). This may be particularly true of group members who tend to be uncomfortable or anxious in groups (Camacho & Paulus, 1995).

Groups can also have a positive influence on creativity. The main proponents of GC have been associated with innovation in organizations (Paulus, 2003). Osborn (1963) began in the 1940s to promote group brainstorming as a useful technique for generation of novel and innovative ideas. Stein (1974) discussed group factors in his volume on stimulating creativity, and group processes were given a central role in the theory of organizational creativity by Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993). The greatest enthusiasm for group creativity can be found among those who promote teamwork and collaborative learning (Agrell & Gustafson, 1996; Bennis & Biederman, 1997; Kayser, 1994; West, 2002).

Although work teams and collaborative learning have become popular fixtures in organizational and educational contexts, the research basis for the efficacy of work teams and collaborative learning is still somewhat weak (Paulus, 2000; Paulus & Paulus, 1997). In recent years, there has been increasing acknowledgment of the importance of social and contextual factors in creativity (Paulus, 2003). Amabile (1983, 1996) noted the role of a variety of social factors such as mentoring, modeling, family influences, and social rewards. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron (1996) developed a model of creativity that emphasized the central role of intrinsic motivation and the impact of organizational contexts on this type of motivation. This paper will explore GC from a leadership and organizational learning perspective.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CULTURE

A learning organization promotes continuous and effective learning in the organization, and enhances organizational capacity through the learning process (Senge, 1990). The learning organization has a culture that results in the enhancing of organizational abilities and the improvement of performance levels through effective management and the application of created knowledge (Song, 2008). Miguel, Franklin, and Popadiuk (2008) posited that organizational knowledge creation is based on organizational learning. In a learning organization, people are continually discovering how they create their reality, and how they can change it (Senge, 1990). Therefore, a learning organization proactively fashions its future, and therefore, the culture of a learning organization is conducive to creativity.

There are seven dimensions of a learning organization: continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, team learning, empowerment, supportive or strategic leadership, embedded system, and system connection (Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004; Song, 2008) Most of these are pertinent to TFL and/or GC. For example, the provision of continuous learning opportunities for employees reflects the IC component, and also provides a foundation upon which creativity can be built. Inquiry and dialogue support IS, and promote group discussion for exchanging ideas during the creative process. Team learning embraces the principle of cooperation and collaboration, which enables successful group efforts and creative outcomes. Empowerment reflects IM, in terms of the conceiving and articulating a collective vision It also envelops GC since it grants group members the needed autonomy and authority to pursue new ideas to fill the gap between the present and the future.

OLC enables an organization to anticipate and adapt to the dynamics of a changing environment (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005). The authors explained that this culture emphasizes the open exchange of information and ideas in ways that facilitate learning and its creative application. Such a culture is vital in promoting GC. Leaders should adopt an approach that endorses group collaboration and team learning so that GC can be fostered.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Dynamic Capabilities theory refers to an organization's ability to create, reshape, and assimilate knowledge, skills, and abilities to keep pace with and stay ahead of the competition in an ever-changing milieu, which requires swift, if not immediate reaction, as well as innovation. The theoretical framework was developed by Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997), who advocated this approach as especially relevant in a world of innovation-based competition. There are three categories of dynamic capabilities: processes, positions, and paths (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997): organizational processes shaped by the assets that the organization possesses (positions), and molded by the evolutionary paths available to the organization.

Since the dynamic capabilities framework highlights the creation and development of competencies, it is pertinent to organizational learning and the formation and maintenance of an organizational culture that encourages learning. Processes, the first dynamic capabilities category, refer to the way things are done in the firm, or what might be referred to as its routines, or patterns of current practice and learning (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The dynamic capabilities approach is concerned with a firm's capabilities that allow it to create new knowledge and to disseminate it throughout the organization in an attempt to isolate those internal factors that facilitate organizational learning (Boerner, Macher, & Teece, 2001).

Dodgson (1993) explained that learning is a dynamic concept, and its use in theory emphasizes the continually changing nature of organizations. Therefore, it is crucial to discuss when the interest lies in individual, group and organizational transformation. Dodgson (1993) also affirmed that learning is an integrative concept that can unify various levels of analysis, including the individual, group, and corporate levels.

Applicable to the level of analysis debate, the dynamic capabilities framework also embraces group creativity. Positions, the second dynamic capabilities category, refer to the organization's specific asset endowments (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). These include intellectual property, which is a reflection of creative minds. Paths, the third dynamic capabilities category, refer to the strategic alternatives available to the firm (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Creative groups would be better able to discern and utilize these alternatives to gain competitive advantage. Interestingly, learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities, which is an aspect of the processes category, would enable the development of asset positions as well as increase the ability to gauge available paths, and thus play a role in the advancement of creativity.

The dynamic capabilities approach also encompasses leadership. An appropriate culture and leadership context can be included among the crucial elements of a management system to comprise a major innovation dynamic capability (O'Connor, 2008). Although the author focuses more on leadership that emphasizes communication between leaders in major innovation departments and senior corporate leadership, mention is made of the provision of mentoring, coaching, and apprenticeship opportunities, so that the less experienced employees may develop new capabilities. This adheres to the concept of the mutual engagement of leaders and subordinates that is present in TFL, and thus, one can deduce that TFL would be useful in a major innovation environment by helping facilitate the development of new capabilities.

The central tenet of dynamic capability theory is that firms can evolve processes that enable them to develop, change, and rejuvenate themselves (O'Connor, 2008). Therefore, the approach is a transformational concept. According to Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997), a key step in building a conceptual framework related to dynamic capabilities is to identify the foundations upon which distinctive and difficult-to-replicate advantages can be built, maintained, and enhanced. We contend that TFL, OLC, and GC are building blocks in the development of dynamic capabilities that enable the organization to reconfigure itself for maximum competitive advantage.

PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

Interest in stimulating group creativity has grown as innovation, creativity, learning, and team development have become important ingredients for competition (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). This phenomenon calls for exploration of the antecedents of group creativity. Research has shown that TFL (Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1998) and organizational learning (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005) play a role in the facilitation of creativity in the workplace.

Idealized Influence

Transformational leaders kindle a sense of enthusiasm as followers identify with the designated purpose, as well as the leader, who reflects the ideal through example. Trust is built and the followers strive to emulate the leader, who also works toward achieving the common goals. Waldman and Bass (1991) stated that a person prone to showing TFL might feel freer to be proactive in an organic organization. It is reasonable to propose that since the emulation of transformational leaders is not uncommon, followers may also adopt a more proactive approach as they attempt to fulfill their responsibilities. This should lead to a willingness to take initiative and try new ways to get the job done, thus promoting creativity. Jung (2000) also stated that through subordinates' strong identification with a transformational leader's goals, subordinates raise their own expectations to accomplish difficult goals and direct additional energy toward the generation of creative solutions.

In terms of OLC, TFL, and GC, Gephart, Marsick, Van Buren, and Spiro (1996) stated that in learning organizations, leaders provide critical support to the learning and development of teams by modeling learning behavior, encouraging people to contribute new ideas, and ensuring the dissemination of knowledge and learning. Modeling embraces II, and encouraging new ideas as well as sharing knowledge promotes creativity. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that OLC would interact with II to impact GC. The following propositions reflect the associations put forward among II, OLC, and GC:

Proposition 1A Idealized influence is positively related to group creativity.

Proposition 1B Organizational learning culture moderates the relationship between idealized influence and group creativity, such that the relationship is stronger for organizations that possess a strong learning culture than it is for organizations that possess a weak learning culture.

Inspirational Motivation

Transformational leaders possess a vision, which they are able to effectively communicate to followers, as they enthuse them to strive to achieve. Waldman and Bass (1991) mentioned that inspirational motivation (referred to as inspirational leadership) involves getting followers to remain optimistic and persevere toward difficult goals even in the face of setbacks and disappointments. This paper proposes that the encouragement of such resolve, despite hindrances, would promote creativity since its pursuit often includes obstructions, and because new implementations are not always successful on the first attempt. Elkins and Keller (2003) agreed that the inspirational motivation of providing a common vision for projects enables team members from different disciplines to work together to bring a technological innovation to fruition. Jung (2000) asserted that subordinates would take extra effort to generate creative solutions for their problems due to the heightened level of intrinsic motivation caused by the transformational leader's articulation of long-term goals and visions.

OLC may also interact with IM to affect GC. In a study conducted by Joo and Lim (2009), it was found that OLC influenced intrinsic motivation through perceived job complexity, and that intrinsic motivation influenced creativity. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that when a learning organization helps to develop an intrinsically motivated group, and the latter has an inspirational motivator as a leader, group creativity will increase. The following propositions lay out relationships among IM, OLC, and GC:

Proposition 2A Inspirational motivation is positively related to group creativity.

Proposition 2B Organizational learning culture moderates the relationship between inspirational motivation and group creativity, such that the relationship is stronger for organizations that possess a strong learning culture than it is for organizations that possess a weak learning culture.

Intellectual Stimulation

Transformational leaders welcome and promote new or different ideas, perspectives or viewpoints, and thus followers are encouraged to think unconventionally when searching for answers to questions or solutions to problems. Risk-taking is not frowned upon but encouraged, and leaders approve of followers challenging the status quo. These behaviors are helpful vis-a-vis creativity enhancement. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) stated that the challenge from a leader's IS is likely to energize the employees to explore and be more attracted to different dimensions of their tasks. This intensified interest in disparate or novel aspects is likely to engender increased creativity. Waldman and Bass' (1991) model of leadership and the innovation process conceded that TFL behaviors are crucial at the beginning to build a vision and spark intellectual activity . Elkins and Keller (2003) added that the use of IS encourages team members from disparate disciplines to look at problems from new vantage points that can enhance innovation. Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1998) asserted that IS is likely to promote GC by enhancing generative and exploratory thinking.

Research also integrates OLC into the creativity discussion in a way that allows for the inclusion of IS. For example, Bates and Khasawneh (2005) explained that OLC can be seen as a critical facilitator of creativity and innovation because it supports inquiry, risk-taking, and experimentation. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest an interaction between IS and OLC that influences GC. The following propositions convey the links proffered among IS, OLC, and GC:

Proposition 3A Intellectual stimulation is positively related to group creativity.

Proposition 3B Organizational learning culture moderates the relationship between intellectual stimulation and group creativity, such that the relationship is stronger for organizations that possess a strong learning culture than it is for organizations that possess a weak learning culture.

Individualized Consideration

Transformational leaders are supportive and attentive. They listen to their followers' concerns and care about their needs. These qualities foster the development of an affective relationship or bond between leaders and their followers. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) mentioned emotional attachment, and stated that employees are more likely to respond to a leader's challenge and support for innovation by exhibiting creativity in their tasks because of their emotional ties with the leader.

Learning is also pertinent to individualized consideration, which plays a role in the expression of creativity. Waldman and Bass (1991) mentioned that IC is the extent to which the leader treats followers as individuals, shows concern for their unique problems and approaches to work, and provides developmental opportunities. This paper suggests that the provision of developmental opportunities facilitates learning and allows for expanding a knowledge base that can be used in the creative process. A culture that encourages the procurement and circulation of information, and the shared use of learning helps boost GC. Therefore, if an organizational culture that endorses learning is present, it would complement the efforts of the transformational leader who is considerate to provide learning opportunities for his/her followers, and help boost the creativity of employees. The following propositions reflect the associations put forward among IC, OLC, and GC:

Proposition 4A Individualized consideration is positively related to group creativity.

Proposition 4B Organizational learning culture moderates the relationship between individualized consideration and group creativity, such that the relationship is stronger for organizations that possess a strong learning culture than it is for organizations that possess a weak learning culture.

Figure 1 provides a conceptual representation of the constructs under investigation, as well as the proposed relationships linking them. The model demonstrates the influence of transformational leadership, comprised of its components, idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC), on group creativity, and the moderating effect of organizational learning culture on the primary relationship.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper discusses how TFL and OLC potentially facilitate GC, thus increasing the dynamic capabilities of organizations as they compete in a continually changing environment. Waldman and Bass (1991) posit that culture may play a leading role in determining the types of leader behavior which emerge in well-established organizations, and that some TFL behaviors may be a product of cultures conducive to such behaviors. The authors state that the environment may encourage or inhibit cooperation regarding innovation. OLC may be one of the fundamental contextual components to enhance GC. This culture enables an organization to be skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993). A transformational leadership style may be the key to promote such a culture, maximizing GC, and, in the long run, organizational transformation.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE INQUIRY

To build on the existing research, two main issues could be addressed. First, the literature reveals that creativity and innovation are clearly related. Some authors use the terms interchangeably. These constructs are distinct and different, however, and should be treated that way. Future research should focus on the discovery, provision, and clarification of distinctive factors concerning both constructs, as well as empirically tested links between them. For example, organizational learning and creativity seem to embrace similar practices, and to be affected by identical dynamics such as leadership styles and behaviors, organizational culture, and organizational climate. Related aspects that could be studied include other variables that may influence the relationship between creativity and innovation.

Another line of investigation could be to study the relative importance of various dimensions of a learning organization in cultivating group creativity. From a practical point of view, organizational leaders could use the results obtained from such studies to further transform their organizations, by focusing on those aspects that could significantly increase group creativity.

REFERENCES

Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation and creativity in work groups. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 317-344). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.

Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39(5), 523-541.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bates, R. & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 96-109.

Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

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.

Boerner, C., Macher, J., & Teece, D. (2001). A Review and Assessment of Organizational Learning in Economic Theories. (pp. 89-117). Meinolf Dierkes 2001. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071-1080.

Choi, H., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121-132.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4/5), 587-606.

Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.

Gephart, M.A., Marsick, V. J., Van Buren, M. E., & Spiro, M. S. (1996). Learning organizations come alive. Training & Development, 50(12), 34-45.

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461-473.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Joo, B., & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 48-60.

Jung, D. I. (2000). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-195.

Kayser, T. A. (1994). Building team power: How to unleash the collaborative genius of work teams. New York: Irwin.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489-501.

Miguel, L. A. P., Franklin, M. A., & Popadiuk, S. (2008). The knowledge creation with view to innovation as a dynamic capability in competitive firms. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 8 (4), 45-56.

O'Connor, G. (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 313-330.

Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner.

Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237-262.

Paulus, P. B. (Ed.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Paulus, P. B., & Paulus, L. E. (1997). Implications of research on group brainstorming in gifted education. Roeper Review, 19, 225-229.

Paulus, P. B., Nahui, T., & Putman, V. L. (2006). Group brainstorming and teamwork: some rules for the road to innovation. In L.L Thompson & H.S Choi (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 69-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Purington, C., Butler, C., & Gale, S. F. (2003). Built to learn: The inside story of how Rockwell Collins became a true learning organization. New York, NY: American Management Association International.

Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Czerwinski, M., Resnick, M., Myers, B., Candy, L., et al. (2006). Creativity support tools: Report from a U.S. National science foundation sponsored workshop. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(2), 61-77.

Song, J. H. (2008). The effects of learning organization culture on the practices of human knowledge-creation: an empirical research study in Korea. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(4), 265-281.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 111-121.

Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85-109). New York: Oxford University Press. Stein, M. (1974). Stimulating creativity (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospect and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. (1992). The nature of effective leadership and championing processes at different levels in a R&D hierarchy. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5(2), 233-245.

Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Transformational leadership at different phases of the innovation process. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2(2), 169-180.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-387.

Woodman, R W., & Sawyer, G.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Towards a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31-55.

Simone T. A. Phipps, Macon State College

Leon C. Prieto, Savannah State University

Satish Verma, Louisiana State University