The Role of Decentralizing Loosely Approach on the Creativity and Innovation Prosperity of the Industrial Organizations
Subject Areas : Technology Management
Yaser Ghasemi nejad
1
,
Mansoor Sadeghi Mal Amiri
2
1 -
2 -
Keywords: Structure Innovation Work Group Organization Equifinality Creativity Decentralizing Process Autonomy,
Abstract :
Creativity appearance in organizations surprisingly affects in successful solving of problems, their survival, and reaching to desirable point of competitiveness and industrial productivity. In one side industrial organizations with decentralizing approach from organizational structure in the form of giving authority from managers to lower levels are going to reach to economical efficiency, creativity and finally to a higher productivity. In this article looking at Hanson Theory about decentralizing strategies, we have identified equifinality (using different technologies, methods, and resources for reaching to a creatively predetermined and great result) as a loosely strategies of decentralization. Considering researches have been done in a context of creativity and equifinality as a Decentralized Management Approach, we can see lots of researchers referred to the importance necessity of this phenomenon as a one of open system characteristics to intensify creativity, competitiveness’ prosperity, and productivity. But a comprehensive research has not been observed in related with correlation of creativity and equifinality in industrial organizations’ subject in a special case. In this research with using content Analysis method, a new category of equifinality usages in organization that causes creativity results, have been attempted to represent by surveying the past studies in relation with “decentralized management and equifinality” and “equifinality and creativity”. With revision and surveying the theories of different researchers in relation with the subject of decentralized management, equifinality and creativity, research's result subdivided in two dimensions accompanied with its components namely “equifinality and work process”, and “equifinality and structure”.
1- صادقي مال‌اميري، منصور (1394). تئوری سيستمی خلاقيت در سازمان، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی ابتکار و خلاقيت در علوم انسانی. دوره 4، شماره 4: 163- 207.#
2- لند، جورج و جارمن، بت (1998). آينده خلاقيت و خلاقيت آينده. ترجمه قاسم‌زاده، حسن (1379). تهران. انتشارات ناهيد: 134-135.#
3- صادقي مال‌اميري، منصور (1393). مديريت خلاقيت؛ چرايي خلاقيت در سازمان، تهران. انتشارات دانشگاه امام حسين (ع): 131- 157.#
4- معلمي، مژگان. (1390). ارائه يك الگوي اقتصادسنجي جهت بررسي تأثير سياست‌هاي تمركززدايي برنامه سوم توسعه كشور بر رشد اقتصادي، دو فصلنامه اقتصاد و توسعه منطقه‌اي (علمي ـ پژوهشي)،2. 146-177.#
5- صادقي مال‌اميري، منصور (1389). سيستم‌هاي اطلاعاتي در سازمان (جلد اول)، تهران. انتشارات دانشگاه امام حسين (ع): 185-186.#
6- صادقي مال‌اميري، منصور (1386). خلاقيت (رويکرد سيستمي؛ فرد، گروه، سازمان)، تهران. انتشارات دانشگاه امام حسين (ع): 184-195.#
7- هولستي، آل .آر (1373). تحليل محتوا در علوم اجتماعي و انساني، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبايي: 16-25.#
8- Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (pp. 77-87). Harvard Business School Publishing.#
9- Kronfeldner, M. E. (2009). Creativity naturalized. The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(237), 577-592.#
10- Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98.#
11- Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial Strategies. California Management Review, 27(2).#
12- Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human resource management review, 10(3), 313-351.#
13- Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22-38.#
14- Cook, P. (1998). The creativity advantage-is your organization the leader of the pack? Industrial and commercial training, 30(5), 179-184.#
15- Kapsali, M. (2013). Equifinality in Project Management Exploring Causal Complexity in Projects. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(1), 2-14.#
16- Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403-428.#
17- Hanson, M. E. (1998). Strategies of educational decentralization: key questions and core issues, Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (2), 111-128.#
18- Rondinelli, D. (1981). “Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 47 (2), pp. 133-45.#
19- Montero, A. P. and D. J., Samuels. (2004). “The Political Determinants of Decentralization in Latin America, Causes and Consequences”, Working Paper, University of Minnesota Press.#
20- Strumpf, K. (1999). "Does Government Decentralization Increase Policy Innovation", Working Paper, University of North Carolina Press.#
21- Bellandi, M. (1992). The incentives to decentralized industrial creativity in local systems of small firms. Revue d'économie industrielle, 59(1), 99-110.#
22- Millett, B. (1998). Understanding organizations: the dominance of systems theory. International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 1(1), 1-12.#
23- Mládková, L. (2012). Organizations from a System Perspective. Economics and Management, 17(1), 374-380.#
24- Florestal & Cooper (1997). Decentralization of Education: Legal Issues. World Bank. Washington DC.#
25- Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (pp. 1-15). Harvard Business School.#
26- d’Inverno, M., & Luck, M. (2012). Creativity through autonomy and interaction. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 332-346.#
27- Halliday, T. (1983). ‘Motivation’. In: T. R. Halliday and P. J. B. Slater (eds.): Causes and Effects. Blackwell Scientific.#
28- Cekmecelioglu, H. G., & Gunsel, A. (2011). Promoting creativity among employees of mature industries: The Effects of Autonomy and Role Stress on Creative Behaviors and Job Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 889-895.#
29- Schieman, S., & Young, M. (2010). The demands of creative work: Implications for stress in the work–family interface. Social Science Research, 39(2), 246-259.#
30- Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106-121.#
31- Tan, G. (1998). Managing creativity in organizations: a total system approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 23-31.#
32- Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and corporate change, 9(1), 1-20.#
33- Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T. 1997. Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27: 48–65.#
34- Morris PWG. (2002). Science, objective knowledge and the theory of project management. Proceedings of ICE, Civil Engineering 150 Paper 12641; 82–90.#
35- Jennings, D. F., Rajaratnam, D., & Lawrence, F. B. (2003). Strategy-performance relationships in service firms: a test for equifinality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 208-220.#
36- Melnyk, S. A., Hanson, J. D., & Calantone, R. J. (2010). Hitting the target… but missing the point: resolving the paradox of strategic transition. Long Range Planning, 43(4), 555-574.#
