The paradoxes of creativity management

33 4, XIX, 2016 Business Adminis a ion and Managemen DOI: 10.15240/ ul/001/2016-4-003 In oduc ion C ea i i y is a e y impo an aspec o ma ke economy. Some schola s (Howkins, 2007; Flo ida, 2002) a e absolu ely en husias ic abou c ea i i y ha should gi e a compe i i e p io i y in espec o he compe i o s. Ne e heless, c ea i i y also aises many p oblems in managemen o i om eeling o guil y o h ea agains iden i y o o ganiza ion. In gene al, c ea i i y is an ambi alen and con adic o y phenomenon ha co e s bo h posi i e and nega i e aspec s. As a esul , managemen o c ea i i y aces some pa adoxes. The main aim o his pape is o desc ibe hese pa adoxes. Ano he aim is o p esen he di e en app oaches owa ds c ea i i y managemen . Finally, he pape seeks o de h one a nai e a i ude ha c ea i i y in economy sol es all possible p oblems. The bigges challenge o he managemen is he e y c ea i i y. In he i s chap e I will p esen di e en concep s o c ea i i y and inno a ion in he pe spec i e o managemen . In he second chap e I will analyze en pa adoxes o c ea i i y managemen including one g and and nine mino pa adoxes. 1. C ea i i y and Inno a ion in he Pe spec i e o Managemen Some schola s (Pečiulis, 2015; Reime is, 2016) speak abou con empo a y socie y as a c ea i e one. The unde s anding o c ea i i y has an e olu ion om he concep o genius o he concep o c ea i e sys ems (Če ne ičiū ė, 2014). C ea i i y has been ea ed in di e en ways om he pe spec i es o di e en sciences (Ba e ičiū ė, 2014). Besides his, unde s andings o c ea i i y depend on di e en cul u al en i onmen s (Klimczuk, 2014; P uskus, 2015). Table 1 shows he de i ni ions o c ea i i y in he con ex o managemen . I is an example how ce ain con ex changes he unde s anding o a phenomenon. On he one hand, he in en ion o manage helps o na ow and unde s and he phenomenon o c ea i i y. On he o he hand, his con ex like any o he p esupposes he a ie y o de i ni ions. The manage s ea c ea i i y as a unc ion o wo k (Amabile, 1998; A nd e al., 1999; D azin e al., 1999), o he no el p oduc s (Fo d & Gioia, 2000; Amabile, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2010), o social ac i i y (Fo d & Gioia, 2000; A nd e al., 1999), o di e gen hinking and idea gene a ions (Amabile, 1996; Paulus, 2000; Amabile, 1983), o cogni ion and judgemen (Rank e al., 2004; Amabile, 1982; Fo d & Gioia, 2000), o ela ionship be ween an indi idual and his (he ) en i onmen (Ande son e al., 2014; Fo d & Gioia, 2000; D azin e al., 1999). Table 2 shows he impac o c ea i i y in a mic o en i onmen (in an o ganiza ion). Besides his, he pe spec i e o managemen supplemen s he concep o c ea i i y wi h he speci i c cha ac e is ics. The impac o c ea i i y is no always posi i e speaking bo h – abou social connec ions and abou indi idual eelings. The schola s pay a en ion o he ac ha an indi idual c ea i i y h ea ens o he social connec ions (A nd e al., 1999; S o , 1972). Addi ionally, c ea i i y p o okes no only a ejec ion and c i icism (Su on, 2001), bu also he con l ic s in an o ganiza ion (Jung & Lee, 2015). Finally, c ea i i y causes eeling o guil (A nd e al., 1999) o can lead o sel - des uc ion (S o , 1972). As a esul , i could be said ha he posi i e aspec s o c ea i i y a e insepa able om i s nega i e ac o s. Tha is why he schola s speak abou he complex in e ac ions (Ande son e al., 2014) o c ea i i y. Ano he sou ce o complexi y is he double na u e o c ea i i y ha is di ec ed owa ds he social en i onmen , al hough i s ems as he indi idual aspi a ions ha in THE PARADOXES OF CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT Tomas Kače auskas EM_4_2016.indd 33EM_4_2016.indd 33 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 34 2016, XIX, 4 Ekonomika a managemen u n a e insepa able om he social wo ld. I is no enough o say ha he o ganiza ions need a balance be ween con e gen (logical) and di e gen (imagina i e) hinking (Basadu & Hausdo , 1996; Chen e al., 2015), be ween sea ch and c ea i i y (Alexande , 1979) o e en be ween c ea i i y and no c ea i i y (Bil on, 2015). The idea o balance o ha mony is insepa able om he idea o com o able clima e in an o ganiza ion. Howe e , he c ea i e decisions a e he esul s o discom o , s ess o c isis and p o oke in ole ance, ange o igno ance. The social ies in a com o able o ganiza ion could be called mic o social capi al ha ex e mina es a mic o c ea i e capi al as possibili y o he c ea i e ideas. Flo ida (2002) speaks abou he clash be ween social capi al and c ea i e capi al. Ne e heless, Flo ida is no consequen by ising ole ance as one o h ee Ts (beside echnology and alen ) cha ac e is ic o c ea i e class. Technology and c ea i i y has been in e wined bu no necessa y in a posi i e way (Kanišauskas, 2016). On he o he hand, he so called ha monic ela ions o en hide an au ho i a ian managemen ha supp esses any c ea i i y. So he Pla onic ( o be p ecise, Py hago ean) idea o ha mony is inconsis en wi h c ea i e dynamics in an o ganiza ion and could lead o i s collapse because o s agna ion o he social ela ions ha lead o a de i ci o new ideas wi hin i . I is no abou a kind o managemen o c ea i i y – ha d one o so one. Flo ida (2002) sees only his aspec o managemen by ad oca ing so called so managemen . Some imes, we need o make e y di i cul decisions o p o oke he c ea i e ideas. Su on (2001) calls o hi ing he pe suasi e he e ics and o i gh ing be ween people wi hin an o ganiza ion. The managemen o c ea i i y should be c ea i e oo. In o he wo ds, i should be bo h unexpec ed bu s ill ha ing a clea s a egy. G eene (2007) speaks abou he di e en wa s a egies including he a ea o managemen . Howe e , he clea manage ial s a egy does no mean he ob usion o ce ain ac ical ways. On he con a y, hese ways should be open o he expe imen s e en i hey lead o he ailu es. Tha is why Amabile (1988) and Su on (2001) sugges ewa ding Desc ip ion Re e ences A subjec i e judgmen Amabile, 1982 The gene a ion o “o iginal and use ul ideas” Amabile, 1983 Idea gene a ion Amabile, 1996 A unc ion o he componen s as ollows: expe ise, c ea i e- hinking skills, mo i a ion (in insic and ex insic) Amabile, 1998 The join no el y and use ulness o ideas ega ding p oduc s, p ocesses and se ices Amabile, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2010 A complex in e ac ion be ween he indi idual and his (he ) wo k en i onmen (o ganiza ion) Ande son e al., 2014 Cha ac e ized by he c ea i e wo k as o iginal one, i. e. di e en om wha o he s ha e done; he case o subcul u e A nd e al., 1999 A c i ical p ocess necessa y o indi iduals, g oups and o ganiza ions aced wi h complex and in e dependen wo k D azin e al., 1999 A social ac i i y wi hin pa icula con ex s Fo d & Gioia, 2000 A mul idimensional phenomenon ha depends on di e en p ocesses, an a ea o subjec i e judgmen Fo d & Gioia, 2000 The di e gen hinking wi h he a ibu es as ollows: l uency, l exibili y, o iginali y, and elabo a ion Paulus, 2000 In ol ing p ima ily in a-indi idual cogni i e p ocesses Rank e al., 2004 Sou ce: own Tab. 1: De i ni ions o c ea i i y in he con ex o managemen EM_4_2016.indd 34EM_4_2016.indd 34 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 35 4, XIX, 2016 Business Adminis a ion and Managemen e en he ailu e by ese ing punishmen only o inac ion. O en, inac ion o imi a ion o wo k is a esul o au ho i a ian p essu e owa ds he ac ical ways ha a e no open o he wo ke s. In gene al, manage ial cul u e should be ich (wi h clea s a egy and open ac ics) and di e se (so and ha d) enough in o de o suppo s a cons an con es o he new winning ideas. The en i onmen o c ea i i y is a he a climax o wo y and compe i ion o e en i gh ing ins ead o ha mony and ole ance ha o en hide au ho i a ian managemen and inac ion. A ha mony should be a ask bu no eali y wi hin a mul i-colo ed wo k g oup. No by acciden , he schola s (S ahl e al., 2009; Gilson & Shalley, 2004; S aw, 1990) s ess ha he mos p oduc i e wo king g oups consis o he inconsis en membe s in di e en senses. Wha conce ns eali y in such c ea i e en i onmen , he mos eal hings a e he inno a i e ideas o be implemen ed because o he ac ha hey change he social (economic) o de . Table 3 shows he peculia i ies o inno a ion in he pe spec i e o managemen . C ea i i y is a e y b oad concep used o desc ibe e y di e en human ac i i ies, i s o all a and gene a ion o ideas no necessa y o be implemen ed. On he con a y, inno a ion deals wi h he idea implemen a ion (Amabile, 1996; Kazanjian e al., 2000; Lane & Lup, 2015; Bledow e al., 2009; Wes , 2002) o idea applica ion (Bil on, 2015). Being such, he inno a ion is a mo e social p ocess compa ing wi h mo e o less indi idual c ea i i y. I appeals bo h o a collec i e c ea i i y and o job ela ionship wi hin an o ganiza ion. As a esul , he inno a ion is no such a ague objec o managemen as c ea i i y. In o he wo ds, he managemen o inno a ion could be a model o managemen o c ea i i y. Speaking abou managemen o c ea i i y, many schola s ha e in mind namely he inno a ion, i.e. he applied c ea i i y. 2. Managemen o C ea i i y Managemen o c ea i i y co e s he di e en manage ial p ac ices including challenge, eedom, esou ces, wo k-g oup ea u es, supe iso y encou agemen and o ganiza ional suppo (Amabile, 1998). Acco ding o some schola s (Wes , 1990), he managemen o c ea i i y p esupposes a social en i onmen o a eam and i s ac o s such as ise o ision, pa icipa i e sa e y, ask o ien a ion, and suppo o inno a ion. Howe e , c ea i i y appeals o an indi idual ac i i y o a ension be ween he Cha ac e is ics Re e ences An e ec i e gene a ion p ocess combines bo h sea ch and c ea i i y wi hin a con ex ha balances bo h Alexande , 1979 Communica ion o ideas as pa o c ea i e p ocesses Amabile, 1996; Gilson, 2001 Th ea ening social connec ion; eelings o guil A nd e al., 1999 C ea i i y in o ganiza ion and di e gen /con e gen hinking Basadu & Hausdo , 1996 Dialec ics o c ea i i y and no c ea i i y; ’no c ea i i y’ as a “necessa y ballas “ Bil on, 2015 Di e gen hinking as gene a ing he ideas, imagina ion, and non-linea hough s Chen e al., 2015 Socializing as a posi i e ac o o such aspec s o c ea i i y as a ee l ow o ideas, mo e b ains o ming, and iendlie wo k en i onmen Gilson & Shalley, 2004 C ea i i y as ” he combina ion o ela ionship con l ic and he ela ional sel ” Jung & Lee, 2015, p. 45 The i a ional d i e necessa y o c ea i e wo k can lead o he na cissis ic, an i-social o sel -des uc i e beha io S o , 1972 Rejec ion and c i icism owa ds c ea i e people con i den in hei wo k Su on, 2001 Sou ce: own Tab. 2: Cha ac e is ics and impac o c ea i i y in an o ganiza ion EM_4_2016.indd 35EM_4_2016.indd 35 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 36 2016, XIX, 4 Ekonomika a managemen indi idual aspi a ions and he asks o a eam. Tha is why i s o all a ques ion a ises how o ha monize a p inciple o managemen and a p inciple o c ea i i y. Speaking abou c ea i i y, we ace inde e mina ion and unce ain y ha could be compa ed wi h chaos. Addi ionally, c ea i i y b akes s a us quo including social ela ions wi hin an o ganiza ion, p o okes he con l ic s and eeling o guil as we ha e seen in he p e ious chap e . Finally, c ea i i y opens he uns able and unclea u u e o he o ganiza ion. I seems ha he cos is oo big o a mo e o less success ul o ganiza ion wi h he s able income. I is no s ange ha mos o manage s do no ole a e any mani es a ion o c ea i i y ha ha e associa ed wi h a e olu ion agains hem pe sonally and agains wel a e o hei o ganiza ions. In his sense, he inno a ion has be e p es ige han c ea i i y while he i s could be be e combined wi h manage ial p ac ices. He e, we ace ano he de i ni ion o he inno a ion as c ea i i y unde con ol o a comp omise o chao ic c ea i i y. On he o he hand, we can speak abou ashion o e en mania o inno a ion ou inized in a manage ial way. As a esul , some schola s speak abou manage ial o hodoxy as abou ”dogma ic belie in he powe o inno a ion“ (Johnsen, 2015, p. 63). The apo ia o pa adox o c ea i i y managemen is as ollows: „ he employees should sys ema ically ollow he ins uc ions o hei manage s. Howe e , his p esc ip ion os e s con o mi y a he han spa king new ini ia i es“ (Johnsen, 2015, p. 63). In o he wo ds, c ea i i y managemen is a sel - con adic ion since managemen should con ol and educe he chaos associa ed wi h c ea i i y. By s imula ing c ea i i y, he manage s isk o p o oke he disobedience o hei ins uc ions including an ins uc ion o de elop c ea i i y. We can call his con adic ion he majo o g and pa adox o c ea i i y managemen (GP). Ha ing in mind GP, he Hamel’s (2007) a gumen ha managemen can spa k inno a ion is a om being e iden . This pa adox is especially sha p in so called ha d con ol ha limi s any ini ia i e o he employees. Flo ida (2002) pays a en ion ha he ha d con ol elimina es any c ea i i y in he o ganiza ion. Howe e , some imes all he c ea i i y needs is a “ha d“ decision o he manage s, as men ioned abo e. Addi ionally, we ha e he di e en manage ial adi ions including pa e nalis ic ones in he di e en cul u al en i onmen a ound he wo ld (Zhou, 2006). In gene al, we ha e he di e en combina ions o ha d and so con ol in di e en en i onmen s and si ua ions. Simila ly, we ha e he di e en models o democ acy ha is s ong because o his a ie y. Besides his, we ha e ano he pa adox ha could be called he i s mino pa adox (MP1). C ea i i y is he mos ac ual du ing a pe iod o c isis wi hin an o ganiza ion. On he one hand, success ul pe iod o an o ganiza ion is an obs acle o de elop he c ea i e ideas (Bil on & Cummings, 2014) since he s abili y and sa e y has mo e p io i y. Rou ine is an ine i able esul o success ul p esen ha in u n comes a e s o my pas pe iod o he c ea i e ideas and hei implemen a ion. On he o he hand, c ea i i y Cha ac e is ics Re e ences Rep esen s in e -indi idual social p ocesses in he wo kplace Rank e al., 2004 Idea implemen a ion Amabile, 1996 The “applica ion o a c ea i e idea, ypically owa ds new p oduc s, new business models o managemen p ocesses.” Bil on, 2015, p. 154-155 En ep eneu ial inno a ion as a des uc i e p ocess Schumpe e , 1939 No el y plus alue Bil on, 2015, p. 157 Implemen a ion e ec i eness Kazanjian e al., 2000 Use ul c ea i e ideas a e he p ocess o hei success ul implemen a ion Lane & Lup, 2015 Implemen a ion bu no jus idea gene a ion Bledow e al., 2009; Wes , 2002 Sou ce: own Tab. 3: De i ni ion o inno a ion in he con ex o managemen EM_4_2016.indd 36EM_4_2016.indd 36 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 37 4, XIX, 2016 Business Adminis a ion and Managemen is insepa able om des uc ion, unce ain y, con l ic s o e en chaos as men ioned. In o he wo ds, any o ganiza ion should a oid i in o de o su i e as a whole body. Howe e , one o mos impo an condi ions o su i e in he compe i ion be ween he o ganiza ions is namely c ea i i y and inno a ion as i s implemen a ion. In gene al, c ea i i y des oys he s a us quo ela ionships bo h inside an o ganiza ion (ho izon al ela ionships) and ou side i ( e ical ela ionships). The la e ones a e no only he exis ing comme cial in e es s o he selle s (p oduce s) and he consume s (Bil on & Cummings, 2014), bu also he alue chains (Bil on, 2007) wi hin a socie y. In o he wo ds, c ea i i y con uses he social o de o e en cleans he social boa d o new ela ionships. I could be compa ed wi h he p ocedu e o b acke ing in phenomenology: we ake he con en o ou consciesness in he b acke s o he sake o new con en . The ques ion o managemen also asks how o implemen he c ea i e ideas – s ep by s ep, by using he sub le and inc emen al changes (Bil on & Cummings, 2014) o by using he adical decisions wi h ailu es and men ioned isks (Su on, 2011). This leads o a pa adox oo. I could be called he second mino pa adox (MP2) o he pa adox o inno a ion. I we choose a way s ep by s ep we a oid he undesi able seconda y e ec s such as con l ic s o diso de in he o ganiza ion bu we lose a s a egic ad an age in espec o he compe i o s. I we choose a adical way i h ea ens o he e y iden i y o an o ganiza ion. I sounds also pa adoxically, bu he si ua ion o an o ganiza ion should be eally bad in o de o ake he adical decisions. And ice e sa, he bigges obs acles owa ds he inno a ions a e he good esul s o he o ganiza ion. The hi d mino pa adox (MP3) o c ea i i y managemen is as ollows: by inc easing c ea i i y in an o ganiza ion we inc ease he p obabili y o he con l ic , diso de and disha mony wi hin i . O en a mic osocial con l ic in an o ganiza ion ollows om he si ua ion when “a mino i y in he eam publicly opposes he belie s, a i udes, ideas, p ocedu es, o policies assumed by he majo i y o he eam” (McLeod e al., 1997). Acco ding o Lane and Lup (2015), ensions and con adic ions in managing o c ea i i y lead o o ganiza ional success. Addi ionally, he s uc u al solu ions could be e alua ed as a way o spli and place he con adic o y asks (ibid). As men ioned, c ea i i y des oys he s a us quo. Al hough some schola s (Bil on & Cummings, 2014) openly call o such des oy in o de o o m new en i onmen , i does no gua an ee any new o de . E en in he case o success ul inno a ion he success could be (and usually is) an apple o disco d. We can emembe he pe ipe eias o S. Jobs’ ca ee in Apple Company. In gene al, c ea i i y managemen is insepa able om con l ic managemen (Gel and e al., 2008; Hoe e e al., 2012; Tekleab & Quigley, 2014; Nijs ad e al., 2014; Jung & Lee, 2015; Chen e al., 2015). MP3 has one mo e aspec . On he one hand, he e is a need o highe le el o c ea i e en ep eneu s’ di e gen hinking in o de o sol e he in e pe sonal con l ic s in o ganiza ion (Chen e al., 2015). On he o he hand, he di e gen hinking inc eases he possibili y o he con l ic s as no hing else. He e, i is no enough o say in unp oblema ic way ha a ie y o in o ma ion, skills and poin s o iew exchange ideas while wo king oge he p esupposes mo e no el solu ions (S aw, 1990). The di e en e sions o such ado a ion o a ie y in a eam we ace in Howkins (2007) and in Flo ida (2002). I MP1 deals wi h he s uc u e o an o ganiza ion and MP2 appeals o he echnology o managemen , MP3 co e s he psychological aspec s o he c ea i i y agen s. Besides he men ioned issues, we ha e also he sociological aspec s in c ea i i y managemen . On he one hand, c ea i i y is an indi idual ac i i y while an ou s anding indi idual demons a es he o iginal solu ions and app oach owa ds he p oblems. On he o he hand, i is a social ac i i y in wo old sense. Fi s , e en he mos o iginal ideals a ise in a social en i onmen as in he backg ound o hese ou s anding ideas. Any in en o o inno a o is no alone bo h by being educa ed in one o ano he way and by wo king in a eam. Second, he p oduc o c ea i i y appeals o ce ain social en i onmen (ma ke o consuming). We can call he inno a ion also as socializa ion o c ea i i y. As a esul , we ace one mo e pa adox as ollows: e e y in en o o inno a o ies o nega e his (he ) social en i onmen ha has educa ed and s imula ed him (he ). I could be called o h mino pa adox (MP4). As men ioned, he al e na i e be ween ha d and so managemen is pa adoxical, oo. EM_4_2016.indd 37EM_4_2016.indd 37 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 38 2016, XIX, 4 Ekonomika a managemen Ac ually, c ea i i y needs enough au onomy and does no ole a e any ha d con ol. Howe e , i we ha e so con ol we do no ha e any c ea i i y, because o i s ambi alen na u e. I could be said bo h abou indi idual and social c ea i i y in a eam. The his o y o a shows ha almos all mas e pieces o a eme ge a e an a is has he o de o c ea e i and ce ain con ol o a cus ome . And ice e sa, c ea i i y is impossible wi hou ce ain eedom o ac i i y and especially wi hou eedom o hinking. The schola s (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998) s ess job au onomy o expe imen ing and explo ing al e na i e ideas. Su on (2001) speaks abou managemen o eedom and gi es an example o ee idea gene a ion on F ydays a Coming’s Sulli an Pa k R&D lab. As a esul o his F yday eedom, we ha e in en ed genomics- echnology ” ha was o i cially killed by he head o esea ch bu was pu sued in F yday a e noon expe imen s.“ (Su on, 2001, p. 100) A kind o ha d con ol is he hie a chical con ol ha p esupposes he p esence o an au ho i y i gu e. Usually, i makes a nega i e impac on idea gene a ion (Mullen, 1991). Acco ding o Shalley and Gilson (2004), he hie a chical o ganiza ional s uc u es migh discou age employees om aking c ea i e app oaches o hei wo k. Lane and Lup (2015) call i “mimic ia o au oc a ic go e nmen “. I we emembe Pla o (1992) any au oc acy o y anny i nally leads o a e olu ion, diso de and ana chy. We no ice i in di e en con empo a y egimes a ound he wo ld. Usually, a de elopmen o he ideas in he ame o a scien i i c o a is ic school is also a kind o sa e bu cons ic ed ac i i y in espec o no el y. We should always choose be ween obedience o ou school and c ea i e eedom ha h ea ens he sanc ions o his school. No by acciden , he mos p ominen a is s ha e been ei he ou side any school (such as V. an Gogh o M. K. Čiu lionis) o he a he s o hem (such as Picasso o S. Dali). Ne e heless, i is al eady men ioned ha he implemen a ion o he c ea i e ideas needs some imes e y ha d decisions. This pa adox o ha d/so managemen also ollows om GP and could be called he i h mino pa adox (MP5). Addi ionally, we ace he pa adox o nega i e eedback ha is posi i ely associa ed wi h c ea i e manage ial decisions (Fo d & Gioia, 2000). In o he wo ds, he wo se a e he esul s he mo e c ea i e a e he decisions in o ganiza ion. To be mo e p ecise, such decisions should be because o he ac ha he decisions o he manage s ha e been in l uenced by many ac o s. Some o hem ( o example, he au ho i a i e managemen ) simply block c ea i i y. Howe e , e en he de i ci o c ea i i y in managemen could be a challenge o changes bo h in mic o-en i onmen o o ganiza ion and in ways o managemen . This pa adox could be called six h mino pa adox (MP6). The se en h mino pa adox (MP7) deals wi h ela ionship be ween quan i y and quali y. On he one hand, we need quan i y in o de o de elop c ea i e quali y. On he o he hand, he quan i y nega es he quali y. We can speak abou his dialec ics no only in espec o p oduc ion, bu also in espec o he employees and e en o he manage s. Should we manage he quan i y o quali y? Fo example, Su on (2001) belie es ha namely quan i y should be managed since quali y s ems om he la e . The eigh h mino pa adox (MP8) is abou ela ionship be ween knowledge and igno ance (nai e é). I seems ha he knowledge is he base o any c ea i i y. Su on appeals o a company’s knowledge in o de o ”see old p oblems in new ways“ and o ”b eak om he pas “ (2001, p. 96). Howe e , he knowledge o pas success does no allow any new app oach owa ds he u u e. Tha is why we need no as much knowledge as nai e é o e en igno ance in o de o ”see-and pe haps sol e-p oblems om a new pe spec i e“ (Su on, 2001, p. 99). In a b oade con ex , Kuhn (1996) speaks abou he scien i i c e olu ions implemen ed ei he by he young scien is s o by he scien is om o he a eas. In o he cases, hey a e enough nai e and igno an , i.e. no ballas ed by adi ional scien i i c app oach, o see he new ways. As a esul , he companies need no only managemen o knowledge, bu also managemen o igno ance and nai e é. Speaking abou he opposi ion o wisdom and oolishness in o ganiza ion, Izak (2013) appeals namely o MP8. Las bu no leas , we ha e he pa adox o ime in c ea i i y managemen . The schola s speak abou he con as be ween “ he possible u u e (‘wha could be’) and he p esen condi ion (‘wha is’)“ (Johnsen, 2015, p. 64), as well abou yes e day’s success ha becomes he ” oday’s ch onic malady in o ganiza ions“ (Johnsen, 2015, p. 62). Tha is why he schola s sugges a planning o any ac i i y in an o ganiza ion. EM_4_2016.indd 38EM_4_2016.indd 38 30.11.2016 16:31:3230.11.2016 16:31:32 39 4, XIX, 2016 Business Adminis a ion and Managemen Howe e , he planning leads o o he pa adox since c ea i i y has usually been ea ed as unexpec ed and spon aneous ac i i y. Ne e heless, he schola s discuss abou he in l uence o such planning skills as pene a ion and o ecas ing on c ea i e hough (Osbu n & Mum o d, 2006, p. 173). Addi ionally, he planning could be ea ed as a c ea i e, i. e. inhe en ly gene a i e ac i i y in ol ing he men al simula ion o u u e ac ions (Anzai, 1984; Mum o d e al., 2002; Noice, 1991). Acco ding o Osbu n and Mum o d, ”planning may con ibu e o c ea i e hough h ough a leas h ee mechanisms: (a) p omo ing idea e i nemen , (b) p omo ing oppo unis ic exploi a ion o eme gen oppo uni ies, and (c) s imula ing he gene a ion o new ideas and app oaches in an a emp o o e come an icipa ed p oblems“ (Osbu n & Mum o d, 2006, p. 174). Ne e heless, he pa adox o ime could be deepened by appealing o Heidegge (1996) who speaks abou ou being owa ds dea h. Reph asing M. Heidegge , all ha makes us c ea i e is ou possible u u e collapse. The manage s should o ge he pas success o o ganiza ion and hink abou u u e end o i . In o he wo ds, he u u e dea h o o ganiza ion makes he employees ali e wi hin i . The pa adox o ime in managemen could be called he nin h mino pa adox (MP9). Table 5 shows he speci i ca ion o all men ioned pa adoxes. Howe e , he pa adoxes a e in e wined wi h each o he . In o he wo ds, hey walk no alone. Fo example, Jung and Lee (2015) appeal o he pas ela ionship con l ic o he sake o c ea i i y. This a gumen co e s MP3 and MP9. The discussions abou o ganiza ional ambidex e i y and i s ing edien s such as discipline, s e ch, suppo and us (Gibson & Bi kinshaw, 2004; Lane & Lup, 2015) appeal o MP4 and MP5. The a gumen o Su on (2001) ha he manage s should hi e he pe suasi e he e ics in o de o inc ease he c ea i e con l ic s wi hin o ganiza ion appeals o MP3 and MP8. Conclusions Managemen o c ea i i y leads o he di e en pa adoxes ha could be classi i ed in o one g and and nine mino pa adoxes. The g and pa adox (GP) is abou he con adic ion be ween he p inciple o managemen and c ea i i y in gene al. Usually, any managemen educes c ea i i y since i equi es ollowing he ules o an o ganiza ion, i.e. o obey he wo k ou ine ha is inconsis en wi h c ea i i y. In he case o c ea i i y s imula ion, he manage s isk o p o oke he disobedience o hei ins uc ions including an ins uc ion o de elop c ea i i y. The mino pa adoxes ollow om GP and co e Pa adox Desc ip ion GP By s imula ing c ea i i y, he manage s isk o p o oke he disobedience o hei ins uc ions including an ins uc ion o de elop c ea i i y MP1 Success ul pe iod o an o ganiza ion is an obs acle o de elop he c ea i e ideas MP2 A adical implemen a ion o c ea i e ideas h ea ens he iden i y o o ganiza ion MP3 C ea i i y p o okes he con l ic s in o ganiza ion MP4 E e y in en o o inno a o ies o nega e his (he ) social en i onmen ha has educa ed and s imula ed him (he ) MP5 Al hough ha d managemen kills c ea i i y, he la e needs some imes e y ha d decisions MP6 The wo se he esul s a e, he mo e c ea i e he decisions in o ganiza ion a e MP7 O ganiza ions should manage bo h quan i y and quali y MP8 O ganiza ion needs no only managemen o knowledge bu also managemen o igno ance and nai e é MP9 The manage s should o ge he pas success o o ganiza ion and hink abou u u e end o i Sou ce: own Tab. 4: The pa adoxes o c ea i i y managemen EM_4_2016.indd 39EM_4_2016.indd 39 30.11.2016 16:31:3330.11.2016 16:31:33 40 2016, XIX, 4 Ekonomika a managemen he di e en aspec s o men ioned con adic ion including he dange s bo h o success ul pas and o iden i y, he c ea i e con l ic s, he social en i onmen , he ha d decisions, equilib ium be ween quan i y and quali y, igno ance and nai e é, as well as u u e end o o ganiza ion. All his shows ha c ea i i y gene a es many addi ional p oblems ins ead o gi ing only a compe i i e ad an age. As a esul , we should e use nai e en husiasm conce ning managemen o c ea i i y. Re e ences Alexande , E. R. (1979). The design o al e na i es in o ganiza ional con ex s: a pilo s udy. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 24(3), 382-404. doi:10.2307/2989919. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How o kill c ea i i y. Ha a d Business Re iew, 76(5), 76-86. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology o c ea i i y: a consensual assessmen echnique. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.43.5.997. Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology o c ea i i y: A componen ial concep ualiza ion. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.45.2.357. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model o c ea i i y and inno a ion in o ganiza ions. Resea ch in O ganiza ional Beha io , 10, 123-167. Amabile, T. M. (1996). C ea i i y in con ex . Boulde , CO: Wes iew. Ande son, N., Po ocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Inno a ion and c ea i i y in o ganiza ions: A s a e-o - he-science e iew, p ospec i e commen a y, and guiding amewo k. Jou nal o Managemen , 40(5), 1297-1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128. Anzai, Y. (1984). Cogni i e con ol o eal- ime e en d i en sys ems. Cogni i e Science, 8(3), 221-254. doi:10.1016/S0364- 0213(84)80002-6. A nd , J., G eenbe g, J., Solomon, S. e al. (1999). C ea i i y and e o managemen : E idence ha c ea i e ac i i y inc eases guil and social p ojec ion ollowing mo ali y salience. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 77(1), 19-32. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.77.1.19. Ba e ičiū ė, J. (2014). Pag indiniai kū ybiškumo i kū ybingumo aspek ai šiuolaikiniuose humani a iniuose bei socialiniuose moksluose [The aspec s o c ea i i y and c ea i eness in con empo a y humani ies and social sciences]. Filoso i ja. Sociologija, 25(1), 19-28. Basadu , M., & Hausdo , P. A. (1996). Measu ing di e gen hinking a i udes ela ed o c ea i e p oblem sol ing and inno a ion managemen . C ea i i y Resea ch Jou nal, 9(1), 21-32. doi:10.1207/s15326934c j0901_3. Bil on, C., & Cummings, S. (2014). A amewo k o c ea i e managemen and managing c ea i i y. In C. Bil on, & S. Cummings (Eds.), Handbook o managemen and c ea i i y (pp. 1-12). Regency: Edwa d Elga Publishing. Bil on, C. (2015). Unc ea i i y: he shadow side o c ea i i y. In e na ional Jou nal o Cul u al Policy, 21(2), 153-167. doi:10.1080/10 286632.2014.892933. Bil on, C. (2007). Managemen and c ea i i y: om c ea i e indus ies o c ea i e managemen . Ox o d: Blackwell. Bledow, R., F ese, M., Ande son, N., E ez, M., & Fa , J. (2009). A dialec ic pe spec i e on inno a ion: Con l ic ing demands, mul iple pa hways, and ambidex e i y. Indus ial and O ganiza ional Psychology, 2(3), 305-337. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154. Če ne ičiū ė, J. (2014). C ea i i y Unde - s andings, E olu ion: om Genius o C ea i e Sys ems. San alka: Filoso i ja, Komunikacija, 22(2), 113-125. doi:10.3846/cpc.2014.10. Chen, M.-H., Chang, Y.-Y., & Lo, Y.-H. (2015). C ea i i y cogni i e s yle, con l ic , and ca ee success o c ea i e en ep eneu s. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 68(4), 906-910. doi:10.1016/j.jbus es.2014.11.050. D azin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Mul ile el heo izing abou c ea i i y in o ganiza ions: A sense making pe spec i e. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 24(2), 286- 307. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1893937. Flo ida, R. (2002). The Rise o C ea i e Class. And how i ’s ans o ming wo k, leisu e, communi y and e e yday li e. New Yo k: Basic Books. Fo d, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Fac o s in l uencing c ea i i y in he domain o manage ial decision making. Jou nal o Managemen , 26(4), 705-732. doi:10.1177/014920630002600406. Gel and, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Kelle , K. M. (2008). On he e iology o con l ic cul u es. Resea ch in O ganiza ional Beha io , 28, 137- 166. doi:10.1016/j. iob.2008.06.001. EM_4_2016.indd 40EM_4_2016.indd 40 30.11.2016 16:31:3330.11.2016 16:31:33 41 4, XIX, 2016 Business Adminis a ion and Managemen Gibson, C. B., & Bi kinshaw, J. (2004). The an eceden s, consequences, and media ing ole o o ganiza ional ambidex e i y. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 47(2), 209-226. doi:10.2307/20159573. Gilson, L. L. (2001). Di e si y, dissimila i y and c ea i i y: Does g oup composi ion o being di e en enhance o hinde c ea i e pe o mance. Washing on: Academy o Mana- gemen Mee ings. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A li le c ea i i y goes a long way: An examina ion o eams’ engagemen in c ea i e p ocesses. Jou nal o Managemen , 30(4), 453-470. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001. G eene, R. (2007). The 33 S a egies o Wa . New Yo k: Penguin. Hamel, G. (2007). The u u e o managemen . Bos on: Ha a d Business School P ess. Heidegge , M. (1996). Being and Time. T ans. by J. S ambaugh. New Yo k: S a e Uni e si y o New Yo k P ess. Hoe e , I. J., an Knippenbe g, D., an Ginkel, W. P. e al. (2012). Fos e ing eam c ea i i y: Pe spec i e aking as key o unlocking di e si y’s po en ial. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996. doi:10.1037/ a0029159. Howkins, J. (2007). The C ea i e Economy. London: Penguin. Izak, M. (2013). The oolishness o wisdom: Towa ds an inclusi e app oach o wisdom in o ganiza ion. Scandina ian Jou nal o Managemen , 29(1), 108-115. doi:10.1016/j. scaman.2012.07.002. Johnsen, C. G. (2015). Decons uc ing he u u e o managemen : Pha makon, Ga y Hamel and he impossibili y o in en ion. Fu u es, 68(Ap il), 57-66. doi:10.1016/j. u u es.2014.05.007. Jung, E. J., & Lee, S. (2015). The combined e ec s o ela ionship con l ic and he ela ional sel on c ea i i y. O ganiza ional Beha io and Human Decision P ocesses, 130(Sep embe ), 44-57. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.06.006. Kanišauskas, S. (2016). C ea i e echno- logies en apped by ins umen al mind. Filoso i ja. Sociologija, 27(1), 45-50. Kazanjian, R. K., D azin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2000). C ea i i y and echnological lea ning: The oles o o ganiza ion a chi ec u e and c isis in la ge-scale p ojec s. Jou nal o Enginee ing and Technology Managemen , 17(3-4), 273- 298. doi:10.1016/S0923-4748(00)00026-6. Klimczuk, A. (2014). Ba ie s o he De elopmen o C ea i e indus ies in Cul u ally Di e se Region. San alka: Filoso i ja, Komunikacija, 22(2), 145-152. doi:10.3846/ cpc.2014.13. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The s uc u e o scien i i c e olu ions. Chicago and London: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Lane, C., & Lup, D. (2015). Cooking unde i e: Managing mul ile el ensions be ween c ea i i y and inno a ion in hau e cuisine. Indus y and Inno a ion, 22(8), 654-676. doi:10.1080/13662716.2015.1113861. McLeod, P. L., Ba on, R. S., Ma i, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes ha e i : Mino i y in l uence in ace- o- ace and compu e - media ed g oup discussions. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 82(5), 706-718. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.82.5.706. Mullen, B. (1991). G oup composi ion, salience, and cogni i e ep esen a ions: The phenomenology o being in a g oup. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 27(4), 297-323. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(91)90028-5. Mum o d, M. D., Schul z, R. A., & Osbu n, H. K. (2002). Planning in o ganiza ions: Pe o mance as a mul i-le el phenomenon. In F. J. Yamma ino, & F. Danse eau (Eds.), Many aces o mul i-le el issues (pp. 3-65). Ox o d: Else ie . Nijs ad, B. A., Be ge -Selman, F., & De D eu, C. K. W. (2014). Inno a ion in op managemen eams: Mino i y dissen , ans o ma ional leade ship, and adical inno a ions. Eu opean Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 23(2), 310-322. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.734038. Noice, H. (1991). The ole o explana ions and plan ecogni ion in he lea ning o hea ical sc ip s. Cogni i e Science, 15(3), 425-460. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(91)80004-O. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee c ea i i y: Pe sonal and con ex ual ac o s a wo k, Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 39(3), 607-634. doi:10.2307/256657. Osbu n, H. K., & Mum o d, M. D. (2006). C ea i i y and planning: T aining in e en ions o de elop c ea i e p oblem-sol ing skills. C ea i i y Resea ch Jou nal, 18(2), 173-190. doi:10.1207/s15326934c j1802_4. Paulus, P. B. (2000). G oups, eams, and c ea i i y: The c ea i e po en ial o idea- gene a ing g oups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237-262. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00013. EM_4_2016.indd 41EM_4_2016.indd 41 30.11.2016 16:31:3330.11.2016 16:31:33