PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2017 | 16 | nr 2 | 7--31
Tytuł artykułu

Location, Working Hours and Creativity

Autorzy
Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Lokalizacja, godziny pracy i kreatywność
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
Tło badań. Od czasów rewolucji przemysłowej masowe zakłady produkcyjne i biurokratyczne instytucje charakteryzowały się skoordynowanym działaniem, które koncentrowało się w określonych lokalizacjach (fabrykach, biurach) i określonych godzinach pracy. Jednak powszechnie przyjmuje się, że współpraca twarzą w twarz szybko traci na wartości z powodu telepracy, geograficznego rozproszenia firm i współpracy międzyorganizacyjnej.
Cel badań. W tym artykule spekuluje się, w jaki sposób upłynnienie lokalizacji, godzin pracy i granic organizacyjnych wpłynie na kreatywność, a ostatecznie na innowacje w miejscu pracy. Szczególną uwagę przywiązuje się do wielu zmysłowych i relacyjnych aspektów momentów twórczej pracy, zwanych również "epifaniami". Zjawisko epifanii będzie wiązało się nie tylko z indywidualną kreatywnością, ale także z twórczością diadyczną i grupową, aby podkreślić jej relacyjny charakter.
Metodologia. Niniejszy artykuł stanowi kontynuację wcześniejszych prac teoretycznych dotyczących skutków odległej pracy nad samokontrolą pracowników (Clegg & Van Iterson, 2013) oraz badań empirycznych nad rolą objawienia się w kreatywności organizacyjnej (Van Iterson, Clegg & Carlsen, 2017). (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
Background. From the Industrial Revolution onwards, mass production factories and bureaucratic institutions were characterized by coordinated action which was concentrated in specific locations (factories, offices) and at set working hours. However, it is widely assumed that working together face-to-face is rapidly diminishing due to telework, geographical spread of firms, and inter-organizational collaboration.
Research aims. This paper speculates how the liquefying of location, working hours, and organizational boundaries will affect creativity, and ultimately innovation, on the work floor. Special consideration is given to the multi-sensuous and relational aspects of moments of creative insight, also known as "epiphanies". The phenomenon of epiphany will be linked not only to individual creativity, but also to dyadic and group creativity, so as to emphasize its relational character.
Methodology. This paper furthers earlier theoretical work regarding the effects of distant work on employee self-control (Clegg & Van Iterson, 2013) and empirical research into the role of epiphany on organizational creativity (Van Iterson et al., 2017). (original abstract)
Słowa kluczowe
Rocznik
Tom
16
Numer
Strony
7--31
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
  • Maastricht University School of Business and Economics
Bibliografia
  • Abbott, A. (2007). Against narrative: A preface to lyrical sociology. Sociological Theory, 25, 67-99.
  • Ahuja, M.K., Galletta, D.F. & Carley, K.M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Science, 41(9), 21-38.
  • Anand, N. & Daft, R.L. (2007). What is the right organization design? Organizational Dynamics, 36(4), 329-344.
  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K. & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations. A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
  • Bailey, D.E. & Kurland, N.B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383-400.
  • Beja, M. (1971). Epiphany in the Modern Novel. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  • Bendix, R. (1956). Work and authority in industry. New York: Wiley.
  • Bidney, M. (1997). Patterns of Epiphany: From Wordsworth to Tolstoy, Pater, and Barrett Browning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
  • Bjørkeng, K. (2011). Engaging fertile frustration. In: A. Carlsen & J. Dutton (eds.), Research Alive. Exploring Generative Moments in Doing Qualitative Research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 102-104.
  • Bucic, T. & Gudergan, S.P. (2004). The impact of organizational settings on creativity and learning in alliances. M@n@gement, 3(7), 257-273.
  • Carlsen, A., Clegg, S.R. & Gjersvik, R. (2012). Idea Work. Lessons of the Extraordinary in Everyday Creativity. Oslo/London: Cappelen Damm/Palgrave.
  • Carmel, E. (1999). Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
  • Cascio, W.F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 81-90.
  • Chapman, S.D. (1967). The Early Factory Masters. The Transition to the Factory System in the Midlands Textile Industry. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.
  • Clegg, S.R. & Van Iterson, A. (2013). The effects of liquefying place, time, and organizational boundaries on employee behavior: Lessons of classical sociology. M@n@gement, 16(5), 621-635.
  • Cramton, C.D. (2002). Attribution in distributed work groups. In: P.J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (eds.), Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 191-212.
  • Cramton, C.D., Orvis, K.L. & Wilson, J.M. (2007). Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. Journal of Management, 33, 525-546.
  • Cunha, M.P., Clegg, S.R. & Mendonca, S. (2010). On serendipity and organizing. European Management Journal, 28(5), 319-330.
  • Denrell, J., Fang, C. & Winter, S.G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977-990.
  • Doorley, S. & Witthoft, S. (2011). Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration. New York: Wiley.
  • Durkheim, É. (1947). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
  • Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Ellmann, R. (1959/1982). James Joyce. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: It's more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 25(3), 26-29.
  • Ewenstein, B. & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as epistemic objects. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7-30.
  • Felstead, N. & Jewson, N. (2000). In Work, at Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking. London: Routledge.
  • Felstead, N., Jewson, N. & Waters, S. (2005). Changing Places of Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • Festinger, L., Schachter, S. & Back, K. (1948). Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Fine, G.A. & Deegan, J.G. (1996). Three principles of Serendip: Insight, chance, and discovery in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 434-447.
  • George, J.M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439-477.
  • Glăveanu, V.P. & Lubart, T. (2014). Decentring the creative self: How others make creativity possible in creative professional fields. Creativity, Innovation and Management, 23(1), 29-43.
  • Gulati, R., Puranam, P. & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571-586.
  • Hargadon, A. (2003). How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Harvard: Harvard Business Press.
  • Hargadon, A.B. & Bechky, B.A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-500.
  • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39, 324-343.
  • Hatch, M.-J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 387-399.
  • Hayman, D. (1998). The purpose and permanence of the Joycean epiphany. James Joyce Quarterly, 35(4), 633-655.
  • Hélie, S. & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117, 994-1024.
  • Hinds, P.J. & Kiesler, S. (eds.) (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Hinds, P.J. & Bailey, D.E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615-632.
  • Hinds, P.J. & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: an empirical investigation. Organization Science, 16, 290-307.
  • Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body. Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. Penguin, UK.
  • Joyce, J. (1963). Stephen Hero. New York, NY: New Directions.
  • Joyce, J. (1996). Dubliners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Joyce, J. (1966). Letters of James Joyce. Vol. I, II and III. New York, NY: Viking Press.
  • Kelley, T. & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All. Random House.
  • Kiesler, S. & Cummings, J.N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In: P.J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (eds.), Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 57-80.
  • King, J.L. & Frost, R.L. (2002). Managing distance over time: the evolution of technologies over dis/ambiguation. In: P.J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (eds.), Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 3-26.
  • Kono, T. & Clegg, S.R. (1998). Transformations of Corporate Culture: Experiences of Japanese Enterprises. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter.
  • Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity, Innovation and Management, 13(2), 89-96.
  • Kurland, N.B. & Bailey, D.E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 53-68.
  • Landes, S. (1996). The Unbound Prometheus. Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Langbaum, R. (1983). The epiphanic mode in Wordsworth and modern literature. New Literary History, 14, p. 335-358.
  • Lé, J. & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Touching data: Revelation through energetic collaboration. In: A. Carlsen & J. Dutton (eds.), Research Alive. Exploring Generative Moments in Doing Qualitative Research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 130-132.
  • Mainemelis, Ch. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 548-565.
  • Mainemelis, C. & Dionysiou, D.D. (2015). Play, flow, and timelessness. In: C. Shalley, M. Hitt & J. Zhou (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. New York: Oxford University Press, 121-140.
  • Marotto, M., Roos, J. & Victor, B. (2007). Collective virtuosity in organizations: A study of peak performance in an orchestra. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 388-413.
  • Maznevski, M.L. & Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473-492.
  • McDonald, M.G. (2008). The nature of epiphanic experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48(1), 89-115.
  • McLuhan, M. (1962). Joyce, Aquinas, and the poetic process. In: T. Connolly (ed.), Joyce's Portrait Criticism and Critiques. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 250-261.
  • Merchant, K. (1985). Control in Business Organizations. New York: Pitman Publishing.
  • Merton, R.K. & Barber, E.G. (2004). The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Meyer, R.E., Höllerer, M.A., Jancsary, D. & van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 489-555.
  • Monge, P.R. & Kirste, K.K. (1980). Measuring proximity in human organizations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 110-115.
  • Monge, P., Rothman, L.W., Eisenberg, E.M., Miller, K.E. & Kirste, K.K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31, 1129-1141.
  • Napier, N., Bahnson, P., Glen, R., Maille, C., Smith, K. & White, H. (2009). When 'Aha moments' make all the difference. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 64-76.
  • Napier, N.K. (2010). Insight: Encouraging Aha Moments for Organizational Success, Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Nardi, B.E. & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In: P.J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (eds.), Distributed work. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 83-112.
  • Newton, T. (1999). Power, subjectivity and British industrial and organizational sociology: The relevance of the work of Norbert Elias. Sociology, 33(2), 411-440.
  • Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25, 833-848.
  • Paris, G. (1997). Everyday epiphanies. In: P. Clarkson (ed.), On the sublime in psychoanalysis, archetypal psychology and psychotherapy. London: Whurr Publishers, 85-95.
  • Paulus, P., Dzindolet, M. & Kohn, N. (2011). Collaborative creativity: Group creativity and team innovation. Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 327-357.
  • Pollard, S. (1965). The Genesis of Modern Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • de Rond, M. & Morley, I. (2009). Serendipity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Russell, B. (1910). The Problems of Philosophy. London: Williams and Norgate.
  • Sandelands, L. (2010). The play of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23, 471-486.
  • Santos, F.M. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491-508.
  • Sawyer, R.K. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
  • Scott, W.R. & Davis, G.F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
  • Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 30(5), 725-743.
  • Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 814-848.
  • Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1, 3-15.
  • Thompson, E.P. (1967). Time, work-discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past and Present. A Journal of Scientific History, 38, 56-97.
  • Thompson, J.D. (2007). Organizations in action. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Thompson, M. (2008). Organising and Disorganising: A Dynamic and Non-linear Theory of Institutional Emergence and its Implications. Axminster: Triarchy Press.
  • Tigges, W. (1999). The significance of trivial things. In: W. Tigges (ed.), Moments of moment. Aspects of the literary epiphany. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 11-36.
  • Tregloan, K. (2011). ...(and then I)...: Design Epiphany in practice and project. Ultima Thule: Journal of Architectural Imagination, 1(1).
  • Turkle, S. (2009). Simulation and its Discontents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Valente, F. (1996). Joyce's Dubliners as Epiphanies. McLuhan Studies 1. http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss1/1_1art15.htm (access: 01-02-2015).
  • Van Andel, P. (1994). Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: origin, history, domains, traditions, appearances, patterns and programmability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 631-648.
  • Van De Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L. & Koenig, R., Jr. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41( 2), 322-338.
  • Van Iterson, A., Mastenbroek, W. & Soeters, J. (2001). Civilising and informalising: Organizations in an Eliasian context. Organization, 8(3), 497-514.
  • Van Iterson, A., Mastenbroek, W., Newton, T. & Smith, D. (2002). The civilized organisation: Norbert Elias and the future of organisation studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Iterson, A., Clegg, S.R. & Carlsen, A. (2017). Ideas are feelings first: epiphanies in everyday workplace creativity. M@n@gement, 20(3), 221-238.
  • Van Iterson, A. (2009). Norbert Elias's impact on organization studies. In: P.S. Adler (ed.), Oxford handbook of sociology and organizational studies. Classical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327-350.
  • Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. London: Jonathan Cape.
  • Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations (Vol. 3). New York: Sage.
  • Weisberg, R. (2010). The study of creativity: from genius to cognitive science. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 235-253.
  • Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Waukegan, Ill.: Fontana Press.
  • Wilson, J.M., O'Leary, M.B., Metiu, A. & Jett, Q.R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979-1001.
  • Zald, M.N. (1996). More fragmentation? Unfinished business in linking the social sciences and the humanities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 251-261.
  • Zhong, C.-B., Dijksterhuis, A. & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychological Science, 19(9), 912-918.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171499796

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.