Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In todays global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order to
survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations with
worldwide appeal, such as Apples iPad and Gillettes Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD,
businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences on
approaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and for
multiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity.
While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and management
assumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role of
creativity in NPD practices in a cross-cultural or global context.
The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross-cultural
creativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modes
of creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route.
The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses on
disruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativity
in distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions are
formulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework and
propositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typically
more than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest to
researchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, and
managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Esi Abbam Elliot is an assistant professor of marketing at Suffolk
University. Her research interests are in cocreation creativity, emerging
markets, and innovation. She has published her studies in Journal of
Business Research, and presented them at the American Marketing
Association, Association for Consumer Research, and the Academy of
International Business conferences.
Dr. Cheryl Nakata is a professor of marketing & international business
at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She received her Ph.D. in
marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago and master of management at Northwestern University. Her research interests are in
culture, innovation, marketing strategy, and global markets, including
base of the pyramid. Her studies have appeared in Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of
International Business Studies, among others, and have won best paper
awards from the American Marketing Association and the Academy of
Marketing Science. She is on the editorial board of four academic
journals, and was PDMA Vice President of Academic Affairs from
2010 to 2012.
111
Literature Review
For this study, the relevant extant works are creativity
studies within the NPD and marketing domains and those
outside, especially from the field of art and aesthetics.
Within NPD and marketing, creativity has been of longstanding interest, but has often been conceived as synonymous with innovation itself (Sundgren and Styhre,
2007). Clearer articulations disentangle the two constructs by framing creativity as an antecedent or precursor
to innovation. More particularly, creativity is said to be a
process or ability that propels and generates new ideas,
while innovation is the development and implementation
of those ideas (Amabile, 1988; Ancona, 1987; Rogers,
1983). This distinction is adopted so as not to confuse
creativity with innovation, and for consistency with
current understanding that creativity leads or is an input
to NPD, or innovation, activities (Amabile, 1988; Im and
Workman, 2004).
Curiously, in the NPD and marketing literatures, creativity has been mainly framed as an outcome; in other
words, the focus has been on what produces creativity
rather than how creativity produces innovations.
Moorman and Miner (1997) examined how organizational memory enhances the creativity of new products;
Zhou and George (2003) investigated the routes by which
emotionally intelligent leaders trigger the creativity of
individuals working on NPD projects; Tu (2009) probed
the impact of contextual factors such as organizational
control in the development of new product team creativity; Griffith-Hemans and Grover (2006) explored whether
individual and firm characteristics determine the creativity of ideas later developed into new products; and
Leenders, van Engelen, and Kratzer (2007) looked at the
influences of design methods and communications patterns on the creative performance of NPD teams. While
illuminating, these studies indicate that knowledge on
creativity as a driver of innovation is relatively nascent,
underscoring the need for this study.
The potential role of culture in creativity appears
neglected in the NPD and marketing literatures. The most
widely adopted conceptualization of creativity in NPD
research is that of Teresa Amabile (Andrews and Smith,
1996; Im and Workman, 2004; Sethi, Smith, and Park,
2001). According to Amabile (1996, p. 35), a product or
response will be judged as creative to the extent that . . .
it is both novel and appropriate, useful, correct or a valuable response to the task at hand . . . In short, creativity
is the degree to which an outcome is original and practical. This definition has shed light on a heretofore ambiguous notion (Slater, 1991; Stewart and Bennett, 1991).
112
Nonetheless, it emerged from research on U.S. organizations (Amabile, 1983, 1996), and may therefore not be
universally descriptive. Indicative of its limited applicability is a recent creativity study demonstrating that Japanese, Chinese, and North Americans differ greatly in their
valuations of novelty and appropriateness, the two
dimensions that constitute creativity according to
Amabile (Paletz and Peng, 2008). Additionally, metaanalyses of innovation and marketing studies indicate that
NPD processes and outcomes, where creativity is influential, are geographically and culturally dependent
(Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Wellknown research has not been conducted on creativity in a
cross-national or comparative NPD context.
An alternative view presents itself when turning to
creativity studies outside NPD and marketing. Researchers have been studying creativity from many vantage
points. Creativity has been an interdisciplinary magnet,
drawing interest from psychology, education, and art
theory among others (Runco and Robert, 1990;
Sternberg, 1999). An emergent understanding is that creativity is contextually situated and socially constructed.
Culture as an environmental element has been pointed out
as especially influential, impacting what creativity is, the
value it holds, and how it is fostered (Csikszentmihalyi,
1988; Lubart, 1990; Mannarelli, 2005). Western cultures for instance are said to emphasize creativity as
(1) observable in a tangible product, which is then judged
by others; (2) as an enterprise embarked on by individuals
for self-realization and self-expression; and (3) as a
process of breaking modalities to generate original
ideas. Eastern cultures by contrast tend to see creativity as
(1) less tangible, noting it can be a product or a personal
quality akin to enlightenment; (2) as a collaborative
endeavor where self is indistinguishable from or secondary to others; and (3) as an avenue of building upon and
honoring tradition rather than abandoning it (Lubart,
1999; Montuori and Purser, 1997; Westwood and Low,
2003).
Creativity researchers outside the NPD and marketing
disciplines warn of the dangers of assuming creativity is
culturally detached. They observe that creativity as a
concept has been heavily promoted in the West, infused
with the ideals of individualism and nonconformity
(Montuori and Purser, 1997; Niu and Sternberg, 2002;
Rudowicz and Yue, 2000). Accordingly, Edison, Michelangelo, and other creative geniuses are said to labor
alone, defying the past and known limits of art, science,
and social convention. Such standards appear useful only
in cultural isolation or exclusively within the Western
context.
A Conceptualization of
Cross-Cultural Creativity
This new conceptualization accounts for different though
equally valid modes of creativity. Because notions of
creativity diverge from culture to culture, it is necessary
to avoid imposing one set of creativity ideals across all.
Hence, a conceptualization of creativity that accounts for
variation is proposed. At the outset, it should be noted
that the concept is intentionally parsimonious, a hallmark
of useful theory. When buttressed against empirical evidence in future research, the concept may be revised to
reflect greater complexity and range. The concept is
admittedly theoretical, and thus remains to be tested and
validated. Nonetheless, as with all concepts initially, it is
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
113
Table 1. Spontaneous (S) and Divergent (D) Creativity Modes: Chief Characteristics.
Spontaneous (S) Mode
Adaptiveness
Addresses creativity by making small changes, usually in process,
in order to solve a problem.
Intuitiveness
Work is done intuitively through use of instinctive yet insightful
choices to generate a product that is emotionally profound.
Process-Oriented
The problem is held constant and the procedure varied, with any
errors made in the process utilized to give room for new
procedures and resolutions; emphasis is on doing.
Metaphorism
A preference for indirectness and symbolism, leading to a
product that is figurative or suggestive in nature
114
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
The S and D modes exhibit other distinguishing characteristics. S creativity is process-oriented while D is
results-oriented (Beittel, 1964). Process-oriented is the
interest in varying the procedures while holding the goals
constant. In this way, any errors are utilized en route to
give room for new procedures. The emphasis is on doing
rather than achieving, such that what matters is how the
artist does the work, less so what is created at the end.
The process, if done well, is expected to yield good art.
The result is typically understated and layered in meaning
and appearance (Beittel, 1964; Burkhart, 1960). By comparison, D creativity is results-oriented, which refers to
the use of many, sometimes complex procedures that are
held constant to maintain control. What vary are the goals
to achieve new forms and breakthroughs, so the art is
observably fresh (Beittel, 1964). In a sense, there is an
undercurrent of pragmatism because what matters is
achieving something tangibly novel.
Also characterizing S creativity is that it is metaphoric,
whereas D creativity is literal. The metaphoric quality in
S creativity refers to a preference for symbolism, leading
to a product that is figurative or suggestive in nature. In
other words, the aim is to conjure loose associations and
feelings in the art observer. D creativity on the other hand
with its literal quality centers on explicitness, such that
ideas are directly translated into the product; the works
meaning, utility, and features are more apparent; and the
intention is to produce a particular thought or reaction
from the observer (Beittel, 1964; Qualley, 1970). Further,
S creativity is intuitive, which means a tendency toward
instinctive yet insightful choices to generate a product
that is emotionally profound. D creativity is by contrast
rational, which refers to the selection of right, feasible,
and reasoned choices, resulting in a product with intellectual appeal and detached precision.
The metaphoric, intuitive, and process-oriented qualities of the S mode are illustrated, in contrast to the literal,
rational, and results-oriented qualities of the D modes,
with Chinese (specifically southern Chinese) and French
gardens (Figure 2a and 2b), respectively. The two gardens
again represent cultural ideals.3
The metaphoric and intuitive characteristics are visible
in the Chinese gardens harmonious arrangement of elements, which express the yin (feminine) and yang (masculine) forces of Taoist philosophy (Rutt, 1996). Each
3
Throughout this paper, exemplars such as Chinese versus French are
used to explicate the duality of creativity, which has predominantly been
interpreted as a Western notion. As with all other culturally derived or
culturally rooted concepts, ours relies initially on observable polarities
between countries (e.g., Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1990; Triandis, 1994). It
remains for later empirical work to validate the modality or frequency of the
S and D forms by country.
115
116
Figures 2. Chinese (Top) and French (Bottom) Gardens. (a) Garden in Suzhou, China. (b) High Angle View of a Formal Garden
in Front of Palace of Versailles, Versailles, France/Glow Images/Getty Images
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
117
mistakes are not put aside but integrated into the work.
In Japanese painting for example, the artist applies fluid,
spontaneous, and irregular movements, adapting the
process as s/he goes along; if a drop of paint or ink
accidentally falls from the brush, it is incorporated and
regarded as giving additional energy to the piece
(Bowie, 1952, p. 38).
The propensity toward adaptiveness may shape NPD
strategy, which refers to the specification of product and
market goals to guide NPD activities and resource allocations (Johne and Snelson, 1988). The influence is
observable in the use of m-kansei in Japanese NPD.
M-kansei is the practice of producing core technologies
that are adapted to create multiple new products
(Parthasarthy and Hammond, 2002; Tatsuno, 1989). The
heart of this approach is idea recycling (sairiyo), or
finding new uses for existing ideas. An example is
Canons development of an infrared eye-reading technology for automatic lens focusing. This technology was
embedded in a series of new cameras that varied in
styling and pricing to appeal to a wide range of customers, from lower- to higher-end segments. While the result
is 30 new camera models, each distinctive in outward
appearance, the underlying technology is the same.
118
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
119
120
P3a: S creativitys process orientation leads to a preference for concurrent, iterative NPD systems.
P3b: D creativitys results orientation leads to a preference for Stage-Gate, linear NPD systems.
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the influence
of creativity on NPD practices in a cross-cultural or
global context. This aim was pursued by first developing
a conceptualization of creativity that is culturally reflective called cross-cultural creativity. Because creativity is
now recognized as socially dependent (Lubart, 1999;
Westwood and Low, 2003), the resulting conceptualization articulates how creativity varies across cultures.
Drawing on insights about creativity from the field of art
and aesthetics (e.g., Beittel and Burkhart, 1963), the
concept proposes creativity follows two paths: spontaneous (S) and divergent (D). The S path is a problemsolving approach relying on intuition, flexibility, and
fluidity to produce subtle, organic outcomes. In contrast,
the D route is a discovery approach, relying on intellectualism, control, and precision, leading to bold, structured
outcomes.
Next in this study, the concept was used to describe
how cross-cultural creativity is tied to differing
approaches to NPD, with the Japanese and U.S. settings
as exemplars. Based on the extant Japanese and U.S.
NPD literature, it was theorized how these modes alter
the key NPD practices of strategy, structure, systems, and
shared values and leadership style. These findings were
summarized as research propositions, which address the
study aim of understanding how creativity shapes NPD in
a global or cross-cultural context.
Managerial Implications
For managers, these findings have several implications.
One implication is that cultural sensitivity is required to
manage the NPD process for optimal outcomes. Previous
studies, including meta-analyses, have empirically demonstrated that culture affects the innovation enterprise
(e.g., Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Song and Parry,
1997b). This study is perhaps the first to propose the more
121
122
This is more possible if the teams are themselves multicultural, and leaders are chosen according to the creativity orientation desired. Project A in the above case could
be spearheaded by the member from China, and Project B
by the French member. Over time, the result would be a
creative fertility: an ability to appreciate different cultural
points of view and possibilities so that the most valuable
path can be selected, resulting in market appropriate new
products. This flexibility in application of creativity orientations is especially relevant for firms with large global
portfolios of NPD projects.
A third path is one that rests on the emergent pattern of
multinational firms leveraging the cultural skills of what
are known as biculturals, or individuals who have deep
familiarity with more than one culture because of varied
life experiences and/or being born into a multicultural
family. A person who is, say, a child of a Vietnamese
mother and American father, and has lived for a time in
both countries, is able to switch back and forth between
the two cultural frames. Firms are intentionally seeking
bicultural staff because they offer the unique ability to
appreciate fully and function adaptively in two or more
cultural worlds (Brannen, 2009; Briley, 2009). In NPD
activities, biculturals may be employed specifically for
their cultural knowledge, including tapping into multiple
creativity forms.
Research Implications
While the cross-cultural creativity concept presented here
is intended to be descriptive of many cultures, it was
examined hypothetically in relation to two, the Japanese
and U.S. Future work is needed to understand the applicability of the creativity concept to other cultures. Furthermore, Western or Eastern cultures are not entirely
homogenous because of subcultures within them. For
instance, the national culture of India is composed of over
20 subcultures and languages. As has long been understood, national culture constructs are large social aggregates not descriptive of all social units (Hofstede, 1990).
Therefore, a future step is exploring to what degree and
ways the new creativity concept encompasses smaller,
lower level social units. Findings can be used to expand
the concept for other levels of social analysis.
It is acknowledged that what is presented here is a
simplified picture of creativity, culture, and NPD for
theoretical purposes, done so to explicate and highlight
their linkages. However, organizations are complex entities, residing within dynamic and multifaceted environments. Studies in the future can investigate conditions
and factors likely to impact elements of this study. For
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
thus affects NPD in uniform ways regardless of geography (Amabile, 1988). This interpretation is less useful for
todays global new product efforts, in which products are
conceived and designed by persons in places far more
varied than in the past. The hope is to have delineated a
new and fertile area of knowledge, triggering critical
discourse in innovation.
References
Abetti, P. A. 2006. Case study: Jack Welchs creative revolutionary transformation of general electric and the Thermidorean reaction (19812004). Creativity and Innovation Management 15 (1): 7484.
123
Gardner, H. 1997. Extraordinary minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional individuals and an examination of our own extraordinariness. New York:
Basic Books.
124
CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY
125