1

Claudiu Mihai. REI 3rd year. 964C

Ronu

Peer-reviewed Article

How to Kill Creativity

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity.

Introduction
Originally educated as a chemist, the Harvard Business Administration Professor, Teresa
Amabile, received her doctorate in psychology from Stanford University in 1977. Ever since
then, she has been known for her research and writing on creativity, one of the cornerstone
papers of her work being How to kill creativity, an article cited more than 2600 times.
Underneath the daring title, professor Amabile constructs a thorough, research-backed view on
the concept of creativity and the means which enable it. The article starts by breaking down the
notion of creativity, adding depth to the superficial definition held by the conventional mentality
focused only on imaginative thinking in solving problems. After establishing the level of
complexity, creative-stimulating managerial decisions are being proposed, some hidden in plain
sight, others surfacing as the result of solid research. Complementing examples throughout the
whole essay gives it the feel of applicability, which makes it a convincing candidate for a pocketbook on creativity best practices.

Summary
Although skillfully homogenized, three major structure parts are identifiable: the
construction of a comprehensive understanding of the mix of elements which constitute
creativity, the practices which germinate creative output and lastly and the example of two
dichotomous business models relative to the application of the aforementioned practices. In the
concluding section, the author draws attention upon the deceiving nature of creative-killing
behaviors, which require conscious action in order to break the vicious circle and reap the true
benefits: new ideas.
After the introductory part, in which Amabile argues that most organizations unintentionally
trample creativity, she begins the debunking of the misconceptions gravitating the concept of
creativity. Originality, mistakenly thought by laymen as being synonymous with creativity,
constitutes but a third of the mix, along with expertise and motivation. While expertise, which is
defined as the sum of knowledge an individual possesses, and originality are thought to be
somewhat of a resource that can be tapped on, the engine that powers both of them resides in
motivation. Be it extrinsic, that is external, made up of rewards or punishment, or intrinsic, the
inner passion or desire of oneself, motivation sets in motion the other two variables. Intuitively,

2
Claudiu Mihai. REI 3rd year. 964C

Ronu

in terms of quality, the self-generated type of motivation is superior to its external counterpart,
being responsible for the long-lasting effort deployed by employees.
Once the establishment of the concept is in place, the author then recognizes the necessity of
guidance in the process of activating creativity and thus proposes six procedures which are
capable of strong synergy between them. They are promoted not just as good practices but their
effectiveness has been proved by numerous experiments, interviews and surveys. The first and
foremost action managers can undertake in order to spark creativity is surprisingly simple: assign
the right task to the right employee in order to stretch their potential. In other words, challenging
individuals boosts their creative abilities but unfortunately, few try to obtain information in order
to make the optimal connections. Instead, something resembling the first come, first served
principle is used, assigning the available pieces of work to the available employee. Secondly,
once assigned the matching task, the manager must not dictate the means through which the
worker should achieve the goal but rather let him/her decide. Facilitating freedom is great but
only if the goal has been clearly stated and properly interiorized by the employee. Moving on,
the amount of time and money (resources) allocated to the task has various effects on generating
new ideas. The right time pressure can enhance the creative juices of entire teams but enacting
fake deadlines or impossible to attain ones works in the opposite direction. The same principle
works for money: just the right amount can yield surprising results but after that, pouring more
into the project damages it. Next, having the right team composition ensures that an idea will be
filtered through multiple points of view and consequently the most creative one will prevail. The
group should have, from the authors perspective, representatives from varied domains in order
to turn a problem on all of its facets before coming up with the solution. Too often though,
managers compose a homogeneous team, with the same mindset and high morale, which turns in
a quick, run-of-the-mill solution. The fifth procedure emphasizes the importance of managers
feedback, especially the encouragement part of it. Amabile argues that even though an employee
might possess intrinsic motivation, it can wither with time if it is not nurtured with the sense that
what he/she does matters for somebody or the whole organization. Most of the time it is easier to
just ignore or dismiss innovative effort, especially when a great deal of organizations reward
criticism of initiative. Finally, preventing internal conflicts, polarization and gossip through the
promotion of information sharing and collaboration ensures the enhancement of creativity not
just at team level but at organizational one. Organizational support should enact a working
climate centered on collaboration and reward such behavior in order to set an example of the
kind of activity prized within the company.
The final part of the articles core illustrates first the efficient use of the above practices and
its effects and then the case in which they are ignored. The company Chemical Central
Research is set as the model organization, in which their procedures follow the creative
enhancing path previously described whereas, at the opposite side of the spectrum, National
Houseware Products seems to make every wrong move and thus it is heralded as the negative
example.

3
Claudiu Mihai. REI 3rd year. 964C

Ronu

Personal evaluation
The theoretical foundation of the article seems to be in accordance with Freuds
psychoanalytical theory of creativity (Freud, 1908, 1925) which states that individuals rely on
their creative side to find a solution to the difficult situation or as an outlet for their now
repressed emotions. The three components of creativity along with the six practices all stem from
the premise that taking an individual out from his/her comfort zone will enable him/her to find a
way back to it by devising an ingenious solution.
The methods used for quantifying the effects of the six procedures, namely experiments,
interviews and surveys, give the article increased credibility although a further description of
their content or references to them would have given the full scientific backup needed in order to
completely trust its arguments. Buttressing the articles points with varied examples, is
considered, in my opinion, a way of filling the scientific gap but nevertheless an efficient one
since the target reader of the paper is not the academic researcher but the busy middle manager.
While examining the use of examples, I believe it is worth mentioning the case of the
creativity maze, a full page dedicate to comparing the two types of motivation, intrinsic and
extrinsic, to a person trying to find the exit of a maze. The author suggests that motivated by a
material reward at the exit of the maze or the need for safety, an individual will find the shortest
way out of the maze while another might wander around, exploring the other paths inside the
labyrinth. I consider the comparison quite unfortunate as it poses a series of logical gaps. First,
the example is based on the presupposition that the extrinsically motivated individual will just
take the most beaten path, implying that he already knows the way out even if he/she is placed
inside the maze while the intrinsically motivated one does not benefit of any such clue. The
comparison is thus clearly not equivalent as we dont have any indication whether providing the
wandering individual with the same knowledge wont prompt him/her to take the shortest route
too. Second, both individuals are motivated, to a different extent, by an external stimulus: finding
the way out. Thus, implying that the second case is based solely on ones desire to explore the
puzzle is fundamentally fallacious. Third, the whole purpose of a maze is to find the fastest way
out of it, instead of checking every corner of it.
Lastly, the section dedicated to the presentation of the two divergent company cases presents
some features which I consider, up to a certain point, artificial. The fact that one company does
everything right while the other one the complete opposite makes the sensible reader question the
credibility of the examples. The empirical nature of business simply does not allow for perfection
by any established standards and thus, the two organizations have a rather fictive feel.

4
Claudiu Mihai. REI 3rd year. 964C

Ronu

Conclusion
The article successfully displays the complexity of the concept of creativity and the
means which enable its stimulation. Such a perspective would help both managers and
employees understand the different nuances of the notion and consequently act in accordance to
the situation at hand. All things considered, the work of Amabile (1998) remains relevant even
today for many organizations, helping them address internal issues regarding the stimuli of
creativity.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity.
Freud, S. (1908). Creative writers and day-dreaming. Standard edition, 9(1).
Freud, S. (1925). On creativity and the unconscious: Papers on the psychology of art, literature,
love, religion (Vol. 45). New York: Harper.