Perceiving creativity (Bramvan der Lecq)

Perceiving creativity
Howtheemployeesofthreeself-managingorganizationsperceivethe directand
indirectrelationshipbetweencreativityandemotions
A thesis by Bram van der Lecq (2599216)
For the master Culture, Organization & Management (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam)
Supervised by Carel Roessingh

2
Master thesis Bram van der Lecq; Perceiving creativity
ABSTRACT
This qualitative research focuses creativity in organizations and on how employees perceive a
relationship between creativity and emotions and organizations at three different self-managing
organizations. All interviewees perceived a relationship between creativity and emotions, as was
suggested by literature. This research shows that creativity and emotions in organizations have a
direct and an indirect relationship. Freedom and stress are perceived to have the most influence on
creativity.
During this research I also found a discrepancy between how employees perceive creativity. They felt
as if creativity was influenced mostly by character instead of external influences. When analyzing the
gathered data I found that most factors that were mentioned by the interviewees to influence their
creativity, were external influences, or could be influenced by external influences. This shows how
much creativity is influenced by the social context, and suggests that employees are not aware of
this.

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Before I hope to intrigue you with my research, I’d first like to thank the Corporate Rebels team to
give me the opportunity to work and learn with them. My collaboration with Catelijne Bexkens ,
Freek Ronner , Joost Minnaar and Pim de Morree helped me turn this research into an experience
that was informative, eye-opening and most of all fun! I’d also like to thank the Corporate Rebels
community who were very welcoming and interested, they gave me the feeling that I wasn’t just
writing my thesis to finish my Master degree, but added towards their community.
Furthermore I’d like to thank Carel Roessingh for his supervision over the last few months. Thanks for
all the trust and allowing me to find my own way, while doing this research.
Then last but definitely not least, I’d like to thank the most important persons of this research; the
interviewees from Buurtzorg, Decathlon and Handelsbanken. Thanks for your openness and your
willingness to share. I learned much from all of you and the enthusiasm with which you do your work
is something I will not forget.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract........................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................3
Chapter 1 Introduction...............................................................................................5
Chapter 2 Theoretical framework........................................................................ 10
Chapter 3 The Context ..............................................................................................21
Chapter 4 Findings...................................................................................................29
Chapter 5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................47
Chapter 6 Methodology........................................................................................... 51
Chapter 7 Appendix................................................................................................. 58
Chapter 8 Bibliography ...........................................................................................62

5
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Why creativity?
In an era in which information becomes of more and more value, organizations need to be flexible,
creative and innovative in order to survive (Bakker, 2010; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). The question
remains; How do you do this? What makes employees in one organization creative and innovative,
while the employees of other organizations can’t seem to think of something creative and innovative
even if their life dependent on it!
After finishing my bachelor, I worked for a big corporate organization in which there was almost no
room for creativity and people sharing new ideas. This doesn’t mean that there were no creative
people. There were many, but most of the time they used their creativity to benefit themselves
instead of the organization. One of the most creative solutions I heard was the following;
Each team consisted of two recruiters, and targets for visiting companies that could be possible new
customers were set for each team. If for some reason they did not reach their target by the end of
the year, the recruiters had a trick up their sleeves; In the week from Christmas to New Years, they
knew most of the companies were closed, or at least a lot of the personnel were on holiday. They
would visit the companies unannounced, and most of the time left their business cards at the
receptionist because the person that was responsible for these kind of appointments was not
present, or they chucked their cards in the mailbox of the closed company and drove to the next
company. Reaching their targets and therefore their bonus, without too much trouble. The result;
happy managers that increased the target for next year with a certain percent, and so on and so on…
You might say that this behavior is the result of ‘goal displacement’ (Bohte & Meier, 2000) can lead
to employees reaching targets without fulfilling the intended goal as it was devised by management,
in this case, acquiring new customers. I like to focus on the creative part, because let’s be honest,
some of the solutions are rather brilliant. It completely changed how certain employees worked,
however the organization did not benefit of this.
Although actual numbers are absent, my personal experience leads me to believe that almost
everyone can give an example of himself, a colleague or friends that found a loophole and used their
creativity to reach targets without having the desired result for the organization.
The reason why those employees use their creativity for personal gains instead of sharing their ideas
with the organization, has always intrigued me. What would happen with organizations if there

6
employees used their creativity to benefit the survival of the organization? To be able to find an
answer to this question, it is necessary to know more about creativity and how it relates to different
aspects within the organizational life.
1.2 Creativity and emotions
What do you think of when you thinking of ‘creativity’? A painter? A writer? Something else? And did
this image change? According to Styhre & Sundgren all of the above could be correct. They state that
the mere word “creativity” triggers strong associations, and often people speak of creativity in
“mystical tones- as though it were a prize that is possessed by only a few” (A. Styhre & Sundgren,
2005, p. xi).
For some the chance to touch upon something mystical might be reason enough to pursue creativity,
however Winnicot suggests there is even a more existential reason to do so. Winnicott, whose
writings supposedly are cited more than Sigmund Freud’s (Kahr, 2016), states that “It is creative
apperception more than anything else that makes the individual feel that life is worth living”
(Winnicott, 1971, p. 65). With this statement he highlights the relationship between creativity and
feelings and therefore with emotions.
In most literature I encountered, the relationship between creativity and emotions in organizations is
not explicitly discussed or it is not the focus of the research. What is described in numerous articles is
the influence of specific emotions on creativity. Amabile (1993 & 1998) introduces the relationship
between social psychology and creativity and discusses how peoples frustrations, motivation
influenced the creative outcome, March, Ashkanasy, Neal, Fisher, & Rowe, (2010), present a new
theory called “creativity-as-mood-regulation”(March et al., 2010, p. 279) in which they performed a
research that shows how negative mood will increase creativity for certain type of employees. Averill
(2001) even suggests that emotions itself can be the outcome of a creative process. He compares
responding emotionally to a dancer interpreting a musical piece and expressing its emotional
meaning. All these articles emphasize the relationship between creativity and emotions, however
they do not take into account the organizational context and the employees perspective.
Creativity and emotions in organizations
When looking at creativity in organizations it is important to note that in most management
literature the terms creativity and innovation often overlap. Some researchers even state that the
distinction between innovation and creativity is perhaps one more of emphasis than one of
substance (A. Styhre & Sundgren, 2005). However in literature on both creativity and innovation

7
within the social context of organizations, the relationship with emotions is hardly ever or not
mentioned at all. Following the, what seems to be, commonly accepted reasoning that there is a
relationship between creativity and emotions, this would suggest that creativity and emotions in
organizations are connected as well. However there is a gap in literature regarding this.
Emotions can be influenced by social context, and therefore also the social context of an
organization. Fineman’s (2000) view on emotions in organizations, illustrates why it is interesting, to
further research the relationship between creativity and emotions in a specific context. Fineman
describes organizations as “emotional arenas” (Fineman, 2000, p. 1). He explains that emotions such
as fear, love, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, and nostalgia are part of the core of the organization
and influence how roles are being enacted and learned, power is exercised, trust is held,
commitment is formed and decisions are made. “Emotions are not simply excisable from these, and
many other, organizational processes; they both characterize and inform them” (Fineman, 2000, p.
1). Therefore it would be naive to simply ignore the influence of emotions on, in this case creative,
processes within organizations.
1.3 The problem
The gap in literature on the relationship between emotions and creativity in organizations and how
employees perceive this relationship, leaves room for speculation and interpretation. When one
combines the influence of social context with how scholars view organizations as entities in which
emotions have influence on all behavior, processes and decisions. It becomes clear that not taking
into account the social context when researching the relationship between creativity and emotions
seems naive and counterproductive. Especially if the goal is to understand a concept that is essential
for organizations that want to survive the competitive and rapidly changing global market.
1.4 Research question
To summarize; There is a gap in literature about the relationship between creativity and emotions in
the organizational context. Both these concepts are interpreted and judged differently depending on
social and organizational contexts, and could potentially influence the survival or continuity of an
organization.
There are multiple ways how I as a researcher could add to this gap in literature. The first is to repeat
experiments that tested the influence of certain emotions of affective states on creativity (e.g. Isen,
Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012), in the organizational context. The
second option would be to research how employees see the concept of creativity within their

8
organization and research if and how they perceive a relationship between creativity and emotions
within the organizational context.
I chose the latter. In my literature research I was not able to find anyone actually asking employees
what they thought creativity in organizations was and what helped them be creative. While they are
the ones that need to be creative in order for organizations to develop new ideas, products,
processes or innovative ways of working. For me this is an important reason to do a research that
could add value to the academic world, without losing touch with the reality of day to day practices
within organizations. To do so I have devised the following research question;
Do employees perceive a relationship between creativity and emotions in the organizational
context, and how does this influence their creativity?
To be able to fully answer the main research question of this research, I will need to get a better
understanding of how employees perceive creativity in organizations in the first place. To do so I will
use the following sub question;
How do employees define the concept of creativity in their organization?
By answering these questions I hope to add another piece of the puzzle that fits in the literary gap
regarding the topic of creativity in organizations. I aim to answer these questions in a way that not
just has theoretical relevance, but also is recognizable, relevant and perhaps even interesting for
organizations that deal with these concepts on a daily basis.
1.5 Why is this relevant?
Scientific relevance
As mentioned, creativity and emotions in organizations are rarely or not conceptualized in relation to
each other in current literature. As is argued by different scholars both creativity and emotions are
influenced by their social context (T. Amabile, 1983; Bakker, 2010; Fineman, 2000; Hochschild, 1983),
therefore it is interesting to research how employees perceive this relationship within their
organizational context. By finding an answer to this research question, this research will fill a gap in
scientific literature on creativity and innovation within organizations.
Practical relevance
According to many scholars, managers and CEO’s, organizations that are creative can have an
enormous advantages over other organizations in terms of market share. Organizations that are not
creative and innovative can end up with serious problems of survival (Bakker, 2010). Over the last

9
few years, the amount of information has increased, this requires organizations to be more flexible
and creative than ever before to survive and gain advantage over competitors (Bakker, 2010; Lee &
Edmondson, 2017). To enable this creativity in the best way possible for both employee and
organization, it is essential to better understand the concept of creativity in organizations. This
research will aim to do so by focussing on the employees perspective and how they perceive
creativity in organizations and what factors are of influence.
1.6 How will this be researched?
In this explorative study, I will review the current scientific discourse on the two main concepts of
this thesis, creativity and emotions. To be able to find an answer to the main resource question, I will
conduct several pilot interviews in order to test and develop the questions and interview tactics,
which can be used for this research. After this I will continue to interview a total of twelve people
equally divided over three self-managing organizations. By combining the data from these interviews
with literature, I aim to fill the gap in literature and answer the main question of this research.
In order to gain access at the different organizations of my research, I have engaged in a
collaboration with the consultancy company Corporate Rebels. This collaboration will allow me to
enter the organizations at several management levels, adding value to the credibility and practical
applicability of my research.
The data I will gather at three different organizations during this fieldwork period will be a
combination of unstructured interviews, observations and informal talks. Due to time constrains, the
gathering of data will be studying a particular phenomenon at a particular time, therefore this
research will be cross-sectional. In chapter 6 of this thesis I will discuss and elaborate on the
methodology of this research.
1.7 Structure
Just as the brain is trying to combine and restructure information during the creative process, I will
try and bring order and structure in the information gathered during my research. To do so, I will first
give an overview of the current discourse in academic literature on creativity and emotions. In
chapter 3 I will introduce the different organizations and their context, from which I gathered my
empirical data. Describing the context of the researched organizations leads up to chapter 4, in which
I will present and elaborate on the empirical data I gathered during my research. After introducing
the literature, giving context and presenting the empirical data, I will draw conclusions and add some
final remarks. In the last chapter I will present the research methods I used during this research and
reflect on this research.

10
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the following chapter I will discuss the current academical discourse about the concepts of
creativity and emotions. I will introduce multiple perspectives on each concept before I will elaborate
on the social perspective. Using these perspectives I will formulate definition which I can and will use
during the fieldwork period.
2.1 Creativity
People use ‘mystical tones’ to speak of creativity (A. Styhre & Sundgren, 2005). These ‘mystical tones’
illustrate the complexness and perhaps even vagueness that surrounds creativity as a concept; as if it
is hiding in the fog. In an attempt to clear this fog and make the concept of creativity visible, I will
discuss the main theoretical concepts of creativity, and introduce three different perspectives on the
creative process that all have significant influence on its outcome. These perspectives can be
categorized into, the neurological, the psychological and the main focus of this research; the
sociological.
2.1.1 The Neurological perspective; “Cells that fire together, wire together”
In order to explain the biological perspective on the process of creativity, neuroscientist Fuster
(2013a) introduces the term ‘the cognit’ to illustrate how memories are stored in the brain and how
they help in creating ‘new’ ideas.
“The cognit (…) a piece of knowledge or memory in the form of a distributed network of
neurons of the cerebral cortex. That network represents one of myriad possible facts or experiences of
mine, the individual. They may range widely in content, from an early childhood memory to a recent
memory: (…) the list is inﬁnite. Some memories are linked to others, “holding hands” through tenuous
or strong connections in cortical gray matter. Some are within others, like matryoshka dolls. Some are
emotionally “neutral”; others carry emotional connotations.” (Fuster, 2013a, pp. 62–63).
By using the term cognit, Fuster paves the way for explaining how ‘new ideas’ come to live. He uses
two basic biophysical principles that are subsequently verified and were originally proposed by
psychologist Hebb in 1949. These principles basically state that cells that fire together strengthen
their contacts, so if these cells fire together multiple times, the connection between them becomes
stronger than before; “Cells that fire together wire together” (Fuster, 2013a, p. 69). Another
influence on these cognits is emotion (Christianson, 1992; Fuster, 2013a; Phelps, 2004). Phelps states
that “there is abundant evidence that memories for emotional events have a persistence and
vividness that other memories seem to lack” (2004, p. 1).

11
How does the strength of cognits and the connection between other cognits help create ‘new’ ideas?
According to Fuster (2013a) it takes cognits to self-organize within the brain. This reorganizing,
connecting to different cognits and making new connections, is a complex task because cognits do
not have a fixed place in the brain. I will use the following example to explain how this can lead to
‘new’ ideas;
When thinking of the word ‘blue’, it might also trigger thoughts of water, sky, the blue car your
parents had or one of unlimited other associations. It might even trigger you thinking of the colour
red, which might trigger its own associations in a similar way that blue did. These associations, is
actually your brain firing the cells in which the cognit blue is stored, and wired to that cognit there
are other cognits. What we learned from Fuster is that if these cells have in the past been fired
together often enough, then activating the cognit blue can also activate other cognits which are
wired to the cognit blue. Essentially, the combining of cognits/ideas makes it possible to create a
‘new’ idea in between two existing cognits. This can be used for solving problems/tasks which one
never encountered before, so there is no existing cognit on how to perform the action. For example
try to picture a blue tree. You probably never thought about this combination before however your
brain is able to combine these into a ‘new’ idea using the cognits associated with blue and those
associated with a tree, and eventually creates the cognit of a blue tree. See figure 1 for an illustration
how such a new combination could be structured.
Figure 1 Emergence of a new cognit in between two existing cognits
This process of combining cognits takes time, therefore most scholars theorize creativity as a process
“through time, rather than a static trait of individuals or of certain creative products”(Sawyer, 2003,
p. 14). However, as is explained by the cells that wire together fire together principle, the next time
the cognit ‘tree’ or ‘blue’ is fired, it takes less time and energy to also fire the cognit ‘blue tree’.

12
This neurological perspective on the creative process, suggests that ideas can never be new, but are
always a combination of two or more existing cognits/ideas (Fuster, 2013b; Sawyer, 2003). This
emphasizes the importance of available knowledge stored in existing cognits in order to be able to
combine and create new combinations.
2.1.2 A psychological perspective on creativity; The stages of Eureka!
Most scholars agree on the fact that the creative process takes time (Sawyer, 2003), but how is it
possible then that when you’re taking a shower, or a walk in the park and then seemingly out of
nowhere the answer to the problem you were having for ages pops up. What we know from the
neuroscience perspective that this process is not as spontaneous as one might perceive it. It probably
took a lot of neurons to fire, reorganize and wire together before you came up with this brilliant idea.
We know that there are almost unlimited possibilities for cognits to combine with other cognits, so
how come that exactly this brilliant solution for the problem emerged?
I will use the ‘four-staged model of the creative process’ as devised by Wallas in 1926 to explain.
Even after more than nine decades, Wallas’s model is still being used as an conceptual basis by many
creativity researchers (e.g. Lubart, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2003, see Sadler-Smith 2015 for
a list of researchers who used the four-staged model as basis for their work). To come up with his
model, Wallas used work of Poincaré, Helmholtz and several poets such as Remy de Gourmont. From
their work, and personal notes he distilled four different stages within the process of creativity;
Preparation: In this stage the preliminary work is done, this contains collecting data, information,
searching for related ideas, and determine what is exactly the problem that has to be solved (Sadler-
Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2003). “The mode of thought in preparation is conscious, ‘‘voluntary’’ (Wallas,
1926, p. 85) and ‘‘regulated’’ rather than a ‘‘wild ranging of the mind’’ (p. 83)”(Sadler-Smith, 2015, p.
4). Linking this to the concept of cognits as described by Fuster (2013a), one could state that in this
stage new cognits containing specific knowledge or memories are constructed.
Incubation: In this stage the unconscious has an important role. Wallas described this as involuntary
mental events taking place in the unconscious part of the brain. There is no conscious mental work
on the problem during this stage, a person can be focussed on other conscious work or take mental
rest. During this the unconscious brain is working relentlessly, forming associative trains an and new
combinations between cognits (Lubart, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2003; Wallas, 1926). This
essential role of the unconscious mind in combining ideas takes time and leads up to the next stage
of Wallas’s model.

13
Illumination: In this stage it is as if someone turned on a light within your head so you could see
exactly where the answer to your problem was hidden. All of the work that is done during the
unconscious stage works up to this moment. Scholars are not certain in what part of the brain this
process takes place and how it is organized. The main reason for this doubt is stated by Poincaré who
suggested that the brain didn’t work random, but used a sense of, what he referred to as, “aesthetic
criteria” that helped the unconscious to reject the majority of useless ideas or combinations and
allowed for promising ideas to be selected (Lubart, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2003). Wallas
described this as the “fringe of consciousness”(Wallas, 1926, p. 97).
Verification: “Not all insights are good ideas” (Sawyer, 2003, p. 15). During this stage of conscious
work this is being evaluated, refined and developed in order to make sure that it solves the problem
as stated during the preparation stage (Lubart, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2003; Wallas,
1926). However, the outcome of what is perceived as a good idea is highly subjective and could be
influenced by social context (T. Amabile, 1983, 1998).
These various stages don’t have to be linear. During the verification stage one could go back to the
preparation stage in order to identify new sides of the problem. Or one could even be in multiple
stages at the same time; in preparation for one aspect of a problem and incubation or even
verification for another aspect of the problem (Lubart, 2001; Vinacke, 1972).
The four-staged model of creativity seems generally accepted and used by scholars. However there is
still discussion on how each of these stages function and what influence different parts of the brain
have on the outcome of the process. Critics suggest that the creative process isn’t as linear as the
term stage suggests, but that it is a constant process of evaluating incubating and combining ideas.
2.1.3 Creativity from the social perspective of an organization; ‘Organizational creativity’
The previous perspectives on creativity all focused on creativity of and even within the individual,
this suggests that creativity is a product of the individual. According to many social scientists this is
not the case, they emphasize on the influence of external factors on the creative process.
Csikzentmihalyi (1994) and Ford (1996) suggest that creativity is not something that is only individual,
but rather something that needs to be looked at from a systemic perspective which includes social
context. Creativity is not a quality that belongs to one person, product or place, but it’s rather
something that is socially constructed and has judges who serve as gatekeepers of the specific
domain it’s in. They refer to organizational creativity (Feldman et al., 1994; Ford & Gioia, 1996; A.

14
Styhre & Sundgren, 2005). In their book Styhre & Sundgren (2005), gather different definitions of the
term organizational creativity before concluding that organizational creativity could be defined as;
“A phenomenon that is structurally embedded in the organization rather than being some
innate quality of a few extraordinary individuals, *…+ emphasizing that organizational creativity is
something more than a collection of creative individuals.” (A. Styhre & Sundgren, 2005, p. 31)
This suggests that creativity is within an organization and not just within individuals working in
organizations. This is where it gets almost philosophical; If creativity is in an organization and not just
in creative individuals that are themselves within an organization, it suggests that organizations have
influence on creativity and that they are not as dependent on exceptional creative individuals to
come up with new ideas. Let me clarify; yes, organizations still need individuals for their creative
insights, however these individuals don’t have to be creative by nature, their creativity can be,
positively or negatively influenced by external (social) factors (T. Amabile, 1998; T. M. Amabile, 1988;
Feldman et al., 1994; Ford & Gioia, 1996).
Amabile (1988) study illustrates this. In her study she researched creativity within the organizational
context and concluded that in her interviews certain qualities of environments came forward. Nine of
those environmental qualities had positive effect on creativity; Freedom, Good Project Management,
Sufficient Resources, Encouragement, Various Organizational Characteristics (an atmosphere where
failure is not fatal), Recognition, Sufficient time, Challenge, Pressure. Nine other environmental
qualities inhibited creativity within organizations; Various organizational characteristics (e.g.
inappropriate reward systems), Constraint, Organizational Disinterest, Poor Project Management,
Evaluation, Insufficient Resources, Time Pressure, Overemphasis on the Status Quo, Competition.
Other more experimental studies showed that giving strong formulated tasks and weaker formulated
tasks, influenced the creativity of the volunteers. Results showed that the answers were more
creative in the weaker formulated tasks then in the stronger formulated tasks. This showed that
creativity can be increased by changing the way tasks are formulated (Erez & Nouri, 2010).
Amabile adds another aspect to how social context can influence creativity. Her definition of the
concept of creativity helps explain this;
“A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently
agree it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in which the
product was created or the response articulated. Thus, creativity can be regarded as the

15
quality of products judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also be
regarded as the process by which something so judged is produced.” (T. Amabile, 1983, p. 31)
With this definition she highlights an important aspect of creativity; it’s subjective nature. For
something to be experienced as creative, it needs to be judged as such by judges who are
appropriate. This interpretive and subjective aspect of creativity is highly susceptible for influences
by the social context, for example via peer-pressure, group-think, or specific socially constructed
biases (Erez & Nouri, 2010; Feldman et al., 1994).
2.1.4 Defining creativity
By introducing and explaining these different perspectives on creativity I have tried to emphasize
how these perspectives interact and work together within the concept of creativity. I want to
emphasize further that it’s hard or almost impossible to merely look at creativity from only one
perspective. The different perspectives are built on each other and each has aspects that can also be
found in the other perspectives (e.g. time is named as an important factor within all three
perspectives). In order to properly research the process of creativity I have combined these multiple
perspectives and distilled the following definition of creativity;
Creativity is the process of creating a new idea from combining two or more existing pieces of
knowledge. This process is a process through time, is undergoing constant internal and
external evaluation, and is merely perceived as creative when the social context judges it as
such.
I will use this definition during my fieldwork and test if this definition of creativity is applicable for
creativity within organizations. With this I will be able to further research this concept and how
employees perceive its relationship to emotions in organizations.

16
2.2 Defining Emotions
Now that we defined creativity, I will introduce the concept of emotions and especially emotions in
organizations. It seems like a rather logical and rational choice to use this order, and it might as well
could be, however according to scholars most of our choices are not just rational or logical at all but
are influenced by emotions (Damasio, 1994; Fineman, 2000; Fineman, Sims, & Gabriel, 2010). Some
of these scholars even suggest that over 90% of the decisions we make are influenced by emotions.
Because emotions are closely related to the choices we make, they can have much influence on our
lives on a day to day basis.
In the next few paragraphs I will discuss the scholarly debate about the biological and psychological
perspective of emotions, after that I will elaborate on the social aspect of emotions. After introducing
the basics of emotions, I will go into further depth and elaborate on how emotions are influenced by
the social context of organizations.
2.2.1 Emotions 101
The ‘Organismic Model’ is one of the first models that tried to capture the concept of emotions. This
model has a biological background and is based upon the work of Darwin, Freud and James
(Hochschild, 2003). They looked at emotions as if it is a biological process, but all had different
theories on the source of this process. Darwin focused on the gestures of emotions, Freud focused
on anxiety and this emotion being more important than other emotions and James suggested that
emotion is the brain’s conscious reaction to instinctual changes. All of them agree that emotions
have a signal function, they prepare someone to get ready for action. According to critics, all these
theories missed a social aspect (Gerth & Mills, 1972; Hochschild, 2003), just as Darwin would have
liked, the model evolved.
The ‘Interaction Model’ presupposes biology and adds social entry. The influence of social factors on
the experience of emotions doesn’t happen during a fixed point in the process, it happens during the
whole experience of emotions. Fineman, Gabriel & Sims (2010) give the example of a call-centre
representative who was angry because a customer started screaming at her. When he calmed down
and apologised, the call-centre representative said; ‘I understand’ while the emotion she felt was
something completely different; She had to hold back her anger. This, according to the interactional
model, is because of the influence of the social context. The call-centre representative handled the
situation in this way because she knew it was ‘professional’ or because she knew her job or manager
demanded this of her. This example illustrates one of the main points of the interactional model;
social context influences emotions and how people react to those emotions.

17
These two models form the basis for researching emotions in organizations, newer theories use
aspects of both models to further develop and research new aspects of emotions in organizations.
2.2.2 Emotions and the social context
While being inspired by several influential writers such as, Dewey, Gerth and Mills, Goffman, Darwin
and Freud (Wouters, 1989), Hochschild (1983) was one of the first to take aspects of both models
and combine them into something new. She gave her theory the rather logical name; ‘A new social
theory of emotions’.
Hochschild uses aspects from the earlier models of emotions as a foundation for her theory, however
she disagrees with some other aspects of these models. She sums up the differences “It is not simply
true that the malleable aspect of emotion is "social" (the focus of the interactional theorists) and that
the unmalleable aspect of emotion is its biological link to action (the focus of the organismic
theorists). Rather, the unmalleable aspect of emotion (which is what we try to manage) is also social”
(Hochschild, 1983, p. 230). This important distinction suggests that each aspect of emotion could be
influenced by the social context, and therefore this relationship between emotions and social context
becomes even more important than was already suspected.
In her book ‘The managed heart’(1983) Hochschild focused on emotions in organizations, she did so
by looking at the ‘emotional labour’ of flight attendants and the ‘feeling rules’ that influenced these
emotions (Hochschild, 1979, 1983). Hochschild defined emotional labour as “the management of
feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display”(Hochschild, 1983, p. 7). With this
management of feeling Hochschild means the effort one has to do to show the emotions that are
required or part of the job. Haman and Putnam (2008) add that emotional labour is always aligned
with “overt managerial control” (Haman & Putnam, 2008, p. 63). With that Haman & Putnam
suggested that if employees engage with emotions that are desired by the organization, managers
might reward them with promotions or salary increase. Similarly, managers may punish employees
that not perform the proper emotional labour by giving them negative performance evaluations or
firing them.
Whilst appreciating Hochschild’s work, critics tend to judge her new theory on emotions as not social
enough. Theodosius (2006) is one of those critics. In her article she tries to “recover emotion by
identifying hidden unconscious emotion processes from its management.”(Theodosius, 2006, p. 16).
Theodosius suggests that Hochschild’s new social theory doesn’t account for the interactive
relational experience of emotions that occurs between people, the individual and their emotions are
examined as concepts that are isolated from the rest of the world. In her observations Hochschild

18
sees passengers as passive participants. Hochschild argues that prescribed external feeling rules
determine how we manage emotions. According to Theodosius, this results in the displacement of
the actual interactive moment between two people, or groups of people. The consequence of this
displacement is that the emotions they engender between the people who are involved in the
interaction, are also displaced. This could be especially relevant for organizations in which employees
have numerous interactions each and every day. A theory that doesn’t take these interactions into
account will not fully capture the complexity of emotions in organizations.
2.2.3 Emotions in organizations
In an attempt to fully capture the intense activity of lived emotions in organizational life, Stephen
Fineman characterized organizations as “emotional arenas”(2000). He emphasized that the research
into emotions in organizations has developed into a sub-discipline for academics studying
organizations. Not so strange, considering their perspective on emotions as being everywhere within
organizations (material objects as actors, e.g. Fineman, 2000), between people (clients or colleagues
e.g. Fineman et al., 2010; Goffman, 1956; Arlie Russell Hochschild, 1979; Theodosius, 2006), within
the body (e.g. Fineman, 2000; Goffman, 1956; Johnson & Johnson, 2009) and sometimes even in the
air (smell, e.g. Fineman, 2000).
Fineman makes a distinction between traditional psychoanalytical perspectives and a social
constructionist perspective on emotion in organizations. According to him, the traditional
perspective looked at organizations as a “cauldron of repressed thoughts, fantasies and desires”
(Fineman, 2000, p. 2). Emotions as fear, hate, anxiety and envy, were labeled as “Dysfunctional
organizational agendas or practices”(Fineman, 2000, p. 2), which had to be ignored and expunged in
order to fight of the ‘demon of irrationality’. Over the last few decennia, the social constructionist
perspective has overshadowed the traditional psychoanalytical perspective in most scientific
literature (Fineman, 2000).
The social constructionist perspective is very different. It focuses on the influence of social context on
how our feelings, thoughts and sensations are labeled and displayed, the social and cultural contexts
provide the vocabularies and rules of emotion. “Emotions, therefore, are intersubjective, a product
of the way systems of meaning are created and negotiated between people”(Fineman, 2000, p. 2).
Unlike the traditional psychoanalytical approach, the social constructionist approach accepts
emotions as being existential for organizations and focuses on how these emotions are socially
constructed. Different scholars focus on different aspects on how this happens and how this
influences the way employees perceive emotions.

19
To understand we need to look closer at how emotions can be socially constructed, and what kind of
influence this can have on employees. Fineman (2008) explains that a process of social valuation
produces an emotionology; “Society’s ‘take’ on the way certain emotions are to be directed and
expressed” (Fineman, 2008, p. 2). They are produced and reproduced by all forms of discursive and
institutional practices, such as family, television programs, films, schools, the internet, religious
authorities, organizations, governments, and even one’s own experiences of emotions during a
specific task (Fineman, 2000, 2008; Fineman et al., 2010; Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Hochschild, 1983;
Theodosius, 2006). What this can lead to is that a person recognizes a situation and knows that,
based on what he learned from discursive and institutional practices, a certain emotion should be
felt. Different scholars focus on different aspects of the social construction of emotions, I will use the
following fictive example to illustrate how different theories on emotions can interact or be
applicable and of influence during one incident.
Simone, one of my colleagues goes to her meeting with our manager. Yesterday he send an
email saying that he needed to speak to everyone in as soon as possible and that he would
elaborate on the topic during the meeting, but that there was no need to worry. I talked
about it with some colleagues, and we were quite curious about what would be discussed,
perhaps we’ll finally get that pay raise!? The next day the first colleague who scheduled an
appointment returns to the floor after about 10 minutes. She looks terribly mad and when we
make eye-contact she can’t hold back her tears anymore; “He’s a jerk! He’s never here, and
he always presumes we do nothing!” she screams. “I don’t care that he says he’s being told to
downscale the team, we’re the most important department of this whole organization!”.
“Wait what?, did you tell him that as well?” asks a colleague. “NO! of course I didn’t, he just
shared his message and he told me that now was not the time to ask questions!” Mark, who’s
next to speak to our manager is quiet and looks scared. The others see him sitting there, and
get a worried look upon their face. In my head I repeat the last line from the email; “No need
to worry….”
During the conversation with her manager, Simone felt as if she couldn’t say anything to her
manager. When using Fineman’s (2000) article, it seems clear that Simone felt she had to act in a
certain way during the meeting with her manager. A way in which there was no room for emotions,
or at least not for the emotions Simone felt. She had to perform some kind of emotional labor
(Hochschild, 1983), and according to Fineman this had to do with her manager being the ‘audience’.
Fineman sees emotions as “being performed, in a particular context for a particular audience
(bosses, colleagues, customers, clients, patients, competitors) – people to be influenced or

20
impressed, placated or befriended, repelled or shamed”(Fineman, 2008). When using this theory, it
seems highly probable, that Simone didn’t dare to share emotions because she felt it was not
appropriate to show her emotions of anger while her manager was the audience. This ‘act’ dropped
when the audience changed, as she came back in the room with her colleagues.
After Simone shared her real emotions with her colleagues, another example of how a person
emotional state can get influenced by the social context became visible. “Mood contagion is the
unconscious transfer of mood between individuals, such as when the negative mood of one
individual leads co-workers to feel more negative” (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 8). In the example
given Mark gets influenced by the emotions of Simone, he is quiet and looks scared. When the others
see him they copy his behavior and seem to be worried as well. According to Johnson and Johnson
(2009), this kind of mood contagion can happen through the automatic and unconscious tendency of
individuals to mimic and synchronize expressions, postures and movements of others. This mimicking
can occur without individuals even being aware which behavior they are mimicking and to which
mood this can be related. This makes the contagion of mood something that likely influence
unconscious mood through subliminal processing (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). In the example given
the effect is negative, however individuals who work in organization with a very positive culture with
employees who are happy and positive, are likely to experience more positive moods and emotions
(Cooper & Williams, 1994).
2.2.4 An emotional perspective
Now that we’ve completed this emotional journey through literature, I have developed a perspective
on the concept of emotions I will use for this research. This social constructionist perspective on
emotions, includes the assumptions that emotions are everywhere in organizations, and how those
emotions are performed or perceived depends on social context, physical location, the local
discourse and institutional practices and all of this can be influenced by unconscious subliminal
processes. Using this perspective I will continue to research how employees perceive a relationship
between creativity and emotions in organizations.

21
CHAPTER 3 THE CONTEXT
This research is performed at three organizations Buurtzorg, Svenska Handelsbanken and Decathlon.
Based on Lee & Edmondson’s (2017) definition, these three organizations can be defined as “Self-
managing organizations”. In this chapter I will explain what Self-managing organizations are, I will
introduce the organizations I have researched and will end this chapter with a comparison between
the three organizations.
3.1 What are self-managing organizations?
To better understand the context of this research, I will first give some background information on
self-managing organizations and how they differ from traditional and hierarchical organizations.
The last 50 years the limitations of the hierarchical organizational model became more and more
apparent (Lee & Edmondson, 2017) and alternatives emerged. This led to organizations that
implemented methods to change from hierarchical ways of organizing, to organizing forms in which
authority is decentralized (Laloux, 2014) and employees are more engaged. Giving those
organizations substantial benefits which allowed them to maintain successful in a dynamic and
intense competitive world (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Muthusamy, Wheeler, & Simmons, 2005;
Nandram, 2017; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986).
Lee and Edmondson identify and define three major requirements that are essential for self-
managing organizations. The first requirement is radical decentralization of authority, they define
this as “the elimination of the reporting relationship between manager and subordinate”(Lee &
Edmondson, 2017, p. 12). By decentralizing the authority, managerial roles and tasks will be
distributed amongst employees or team members in a way that is not permanent, unbounded, or
vested in hierarchical rank (Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Manz, 1992). This does not automatically mean
that the managers disappear, however the traditional way of managing changes. A manager needs to
become a supportive leader who helps employees make their own decisions, instead of deciding for
them.
The second requirement is that of a formal system that “codifies how authority is decentralized in the
organization through a set of explicit rules or principles”(Lee & Edmondson, 2017). By using a formal
system, the organization makes sure that the decentralization of authority is not only an informal
arrangement between managers and their subordinates. If this formalization of the decentralization
of authority is absent, there is the chance that employees are influenced by social pressure to make
certain choices (Barker, 1993; Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Manz, 1992). This could lead to employees

22
making socially accepted choices, or the choice their manager would like, instead of choosing what
they think is best for the organization.
The third requirement Lee and Edmondson identify is that the decentralization of authority has to
occur throughout the organization. “The formal rules apply to everyone in the organization, from
front-line employees to mid- and senior-level employees”(Lee & Edmondson, 2017). If this is not the
case, then inequities between employees will still exist, and therefore the term self-managing
organization will not be applicable.
Self-management organizations can be highly heterogeneous (Lee & Edmondson, 2017), they can
differ in structure and formal rules. When comparing multiple case studies on self-managing
organizations it is almost impossible to find organizations that are structured and formed exactly the
same (e.g. Barker, 1993; Ciborra, 1996; Luo, Van de Ven, Jing, & Jiang, 2018; Nandram, 2015). The
three organizations I conducted my research at, also differ in form and way of organizing but can all
be categorized as Self-managing organizations.
To summarize; Self-managing organizations are a counterpart of the traditional hierarchical way of
working, each organization differs in structure but all have at least three things in common. They
radically decentralized authority, which doesn’t mean that there are no more managers, they have a
formal system that supports this decentralization of authority and have implemented this way of
working of the whole organization. By doing so the employees receive more power and room to
make their own decisions, experience more freedom, are allowed to learn from their mistakes and
feel more engaged with the organization.
3.2 The organizations
I will introduce the three organizations at which I conducted my research. I will do so by first giving
background information about the organization and its history, after that I will use the three
requirements of self-managing organizations as introduced by Lee & Edmondson(2017) to identify
why these organizations can be categorized as self-managing organizations.
3.2.1 Buurtzorg
After the 1990’s, when the Dutch government decided to reform the healthcare system. Multiple
home care groups merged, hoping to benefit by creating an economy of scale (Nandram, 2015). In
order to manage this they came up with new organizational structures and devised a control system
by setting time limits for the different tasks nurses had to perform. Tasks such as helping a patient to
bathe, changing clothes or give medication, thereby leaving almost no room for nurses to act upon

23
their own instincts and socialize with their patients. Those patients often had more than 30 different
nurses helping them each month (Nandram, 2015).
In 2006 Jos de Blok, a former community nurse and manager, came with an alternative and founded
Buurtzorg. Buurtzorg started with two teams of 12 nurses. Nowadays Buurtzorg employs around
14,000 nurses working in 950 teams across the country and serve about 70,000 patients each year
(Nandram, 2017). He founded an organization which did not emphasize on paperwork and highly
regulated care, but instead provided the care that was needed with minimal administrative oversight
and with focus on the patients wellbeing. All this in collaboration with the patients, their families,
physicians, and the community (Monsen & De Blok, 2013). The main aim for the people working at
Buurtzorg is “to make their patient stronger and independent.” De Blok even argues that good
district nurses “should aim to make themselves superfluous” (Sheldon, 2017, p. 1).
Buurtzorg consists of self-managing regional teams, and just 50 employees (0,36% of total
employees) who handle administrative tasks. The teams of nurses are formed independently and
consist of a maximum of 12 people. These teams are self-governing and provide all care that is
necessary for their patients. The nurses decide together with their team and the patients what the
schedule will be and are able to make decisions based on their experience and knowledge whether
to spent more time at one patient than at another. Within the teams there are no managers, all the
decisions are made collectively, however teams can call in the help of regional coaches in order to
help the team find solutions for certain problems (Brouwer, 2017; Monsen & De Blok, 2013;
Nandram & Koster, 2014; Sheldon, 2017). These coaches have no hierarchical power, their role is to
ask the insightful questions that help teams find their own solutions. “The coach’s role is not to
prevent foreseeable problems, but to support teams in solving them” (Laloux, 2014, p. 70).
The way Buurtzorg is organized proves to be highly successful for both clients and employees.
Overhead costs and absenteeism are half or even less of regular homecare organizations . Patients
improved twice as fast in half the time, with one-third viewer visits by nurses then other homecare
organizations and based on the Consumer Quality Index of 2012 (9.1) & 2013 (9.5), the patients were
highly satisfied (Monsen & De Blok, 2013; Nandram, 2017). Just as the patients the employees of
Buurtzorg are happy as well, Buurtzorg was named best employer in 2012 and in 2013 employee
satisfaction score was an 8.9 (Nandram, 2017).
To summarize; Buurtzorg is an healthcare organization in which self-managing teams aim to help
their patients as good as possible. To do so they enable their employees to use their experience and
knowledge in order to make decisions, plan and act in ways they think is best for the patient and for

24
Buurtzorg. This freedom leads to an open atmosphere in which there is room for emotions, to discuss
choices, and make mistakes. Their internal ‘social media’ enables employees to share knowledge and
personal stories quickly and helps the board gather information and input for strategic decisions in
an open and transparent way.
What makes Buurtzorg a self-managing organization?
Buurtzorg can be seen as a prime example of a self-managing organization. From the beginning they
have organized themselves as an organization in which authority was radically decentralized for the,
it has a formal system in which it is declared that decisions are made by the regional teams and
strategic decisions are open for feedback and input from everyone within the organization.
3.2.2 Handelsbanken
The Swedish bank Handelsbanken was founded in 1871. The first few decades the bank grew rather
slow and its organizational structure and management style were rather traditional. This all changed
when Jan Wallander arrived at the bank in the 1960’. He started to convince the board that radical
changes were necessary. Wallander wanted to reform Handelsbanken into a decentralized
organization with strong local branches. He redesigned management practices to support that
decentralization (Brunninge, 2005). The board agreed and these changes are still in place and are one
of the main reasons Handelsbanken is as successful as it is.
Now active in over 24 countries employing over 14.000 people, Handelsbanken is specialized in
private and business banking and famous for its customer focused approach. Another aspect in which
Handelsbanken differs from traditional banking institutions is their approach to budgeting. They
don’t do that. They reason; why spend up to 30 percent of your time and resources on planning,
setting targets and predicting the future, if within a few months everything can have changed and it
doesn’t correspond with the actual outcome anymore. Their alternative is to focus on return-on-
equity, cost-to-income ratio and customer satisfaction (Daum, 2002). In this way they involve
everyone in the organization, and stimulate them to make plans themselves, instead of being told
what they need to do. Handelsbanken enables their employees to take decisions and approve loans,
without having to follow al kind of prescribed processes to do so. By doing so Handelsbanken’s
philosophy, to make 90% to 95% of the decisions locally, can be realized.
Their performance measurements system is simple; Perform relatively better than the market. In
order to measure this, Handelsbanken uses benchmarks to see how well they are performing
compared to their competitors. With this they created a performance climate that focuses on doing
better than the competition, instead of reaching targets which could eventually impair the customer.

25
To summarize; Handelsbanken’s way of focusing on customer satisfaction in combination with a
decentralized organization and a high focus on ownership and responsibility of employees has made
them unique in the financial sector. This in combination with their conservative course is the main
reason for their success . The organization itself is, compared to other financial organizations, rather
open and less competitive towards colleagues. There is a sense of doing things together and people
feel as if they can share personal things that stand in the way in their day to day business, without
having to worry for their job. Employees help each other and aim to reach their shared goal; making
their customers happy, while being as efficient as possible.
What makes Handelsbanken a self-managing organization?
Handelsbanken still has several management layers within their organization, which might feel
contradictive when using the term “self-managing”. However when using the three requirements of
SMO’s as described by Lee & Edmondson (2017), Handelsbanken can clearly defined as a self-
managing organization. Authority is radically decentralized, up to 95% of the decisions are made
locally. There is a formal system in which this decentralization is included, and these rules apply to
the entire organization. The managers at Handelsbanken have a supportive role, they help make
their employees make decisions.
3.2.3 Decathlon
The France retailer Decathlon, which specializes in sports and outdoor utilities, opened its first store
in 1976. Over the last 40 years this organization grew to over 1100 stores in 40 different countries,
employing over 70.000 people. The first forty years Decathlon had rather traditional and hierarchical
way of organizing. With the arrival of the new CEO, Michel Aballea, in 2015 this al changed.
Aballea noticed that the Decathlon stores were changing into ‘elephants’ and were unable to move
and react quickly to the local market. This observation became the start of a transformation towards
an organization that became more decentralized and could react quicker to the local market
conditions. This change started with getting rid of most management layers, leaving just four
management layers; The worldwide CEO (Michel Aballea),a Country leader, Store leader and the
Sport or Project leader.
Aballea didn’t set any deadlines or targets for when the change should be implemented. He figured
that in order to become a decentralized organization, he needed to trust his employees in choosing
the right pace and making the right decisions based on what they see on the floors, or hear from
their employees. This meant that the transition and changes that are being made can differ between
certain countries or even between stores in the same country. One thing is the same for all stores,

26
there has been a shift from focusing on profit towards a more purpose and value driven focus in
which Decathlon’s mission, ‘Making sports available for everyone’, is central.
Decathlon got rid of most of its managers and management layers. This was done by redistributing all
the tasks within the organization. They did so in order to match tasks with the right employees, and
enabling those employees to use their talents in a way that benefited the organization and
themselves. The role of the managers that did stay changed drastically, their role shifted towards a
more supportive role then an hierarchical role. In this way they enabled the talents of their
employees and held them learn from their mistakes.
Decathlon believes that giving their employees responsibilities for the things they like to do, engages
them better with the organization, which results in those employees being willing to add and work
towards the common goal of Decathlon, ‘Making sports available for everyone’.
To summarize; Decathlon is in the midst of transition from a rather hierarchical towards a
decentralized way of working. Their organization is highly customer focused and aims to enable
personal growth to primarily benefit the employee and not just the organization. They do so by
creating an open atmosphere in which any employee can ask any colleague to become his coach. By
doing so they stimulate that people invest in themselves, create room for them to share problems
and learn from their mistakes.
What makes Decathlon a self-managing organization?
The last few years Decathlon has become more and more self-managing. Nowadays the authority is
decentralized and this is done based on a formal system in which this is integrated. It is the intention
for the whole organization to become self-managing, however because this happens in a self-
managing way, not all stores or countries follow the same path, and are free to decide on the speed
in which this progresses. Therefore they do not always work in a self-managed way already, however
they do have influence on this process. Therefore I state that Decathlon also fulfills the last
requirement of a self-managing organization.
3.3 Comparing the three organizations
As was mentioned by Lee & Edmondson (2017), self-managing organizations can be very
heterogeneous and almost none of those organizations are structured in exactly the same way. This
is also the case at the three organizations of my research. First I will elaborate on the differences and
commonalities of these organization, and then I will further explain why chose these three
organizations for my research.

27
3.3.1 Differences
When looking at all three organizations there are definitely some differences. One of the biggest
differences is the sectors in which these organizations are active, Buurtzorg is active in healthcare,
Handelsbanken in finance and Decathlon in the retail sector.
Then there is a difference in origin. Both Decathlon and Handelsbanken originally had a rather
hierarchical way of working but evolved towards a system in which authority is decentralized, and
their organization can be described as Self-managing, based on the definition of Lee & Edmondson
(2017). This could also be the reason why Handelsbanken and Decathlon still have several
management layers and Buurtzorg doesn’t have any managers at all. Important to note is that the
role of the managers changed compared to the old organization, now the managers are more
focused on supporting their employees.
Buurtzorg is the only organization that is not (yet) active internationally, the others have offices and
stores spread across the globe. Decathlon is the biggest of these three organizations with 70.000
employees, Buurtzorg and Handelsbanken both employ around 14.000 people.
It might seem odd to conduct research at organizations that are not in the same sector, are not
structured exactly the same and differ in size and location. However next to these difference there
are also a lot of commonalities.
3.3.2 Commonalities
As mentioned self-managing organizations can be rather heterogeneous and this appears to be so for
the three organizations of my research as well, however there are not only differences.
All of these organizations can be described as self-managing organizations in which authority is
decentralized, and in which that is incorporated in a formal system that is operative for the entire
organization. Next to the three requirements there are certain other aspects they share. All of these
organizations have a strong customer focused approach, in which their employees receive the
freedom and trust that enables them to help their customers as good as possible. This goes hand in
hand with another shared aspect amongst the three, the focus on purpose instead of profit.
All organizations are structured in groups of small teams, the number of members of each team
differ but the structure is similar. The roles in the teams are not fixed and employees can decide or
help decide the choices that need to be made.

28
All organization share a certain openness, their employees feel free to share stories and be critical
without having to worry about any consequences for saying what they think. This creates an
atmosphere in which there is lots of room for emotions, personal problems, discussions and
feedback. In all three organizations this is combined with a focus on personal growth of the
employee. At all three organizations this has led to happy employees who are engaged and willing to
work and do their best for the organization they work for and its customers.
3.3 The interviewees
In the next chapter I will discuss the findings of this research. To present this in a way that one is able
to analyze the data without ignoring the amount of diversity of the answers given by the different
interviewees, appeared to be a challenge and required certain creative thinking from my side. To be
able to illustrate the differences between the different organizations and within the several layers of
an organization I have chosen to use a coding system for the interviewees. This code, a combination
of colors for each organization; Buurtzorg, Handelsbanken and Decathlon, and letters that
correspond with the first letter of each organization and numbers that correspond with the
interviewees. In the table below you can see which interviewee stands for which code, and the
function of that person.
Code Function
Buurtzorg interviewee 1 B1 Nurse
Buurtzorg interviewee 2 B2 Nurse
Buurtzorg interviewee 3 B3 Co-founder Buurtzorg
Buurtzorg interviewee 4 B4 Coach
Handelsbanken interviewee 1 H1 Office Director
Handelsbanken interviewee 2 H2 Account Manager
Handelsbanken interviewee 3 H3 Office Director
Handelsbanken interviewee 4 H4 Account Manager
Decathlon interviewee 1 D1 Sports Leader
Decathlon interviewee 2 D2 Project Leader
Decathlon interviewee 3 D3 Leader Paid Traffic Team
Decathlon interviewee 4 D4 Country director

29
Chapter 4 Findings
In this chapter I will elaborate on the empirical data I gathered during the interviews. First I will focus
on findings related to the sub question; How do employees interpret the concept of creativity in their
organization? After that I will continue to finding answers for the main research question: “Do
employees perceive a relationship between creativity and emotions in an organizational context, and
how does this influence their creativity?” I will do this by elaborating on the answers given by the
interviewees and adding observations, field notes and analysis.
4.1 How the interviewees define creativity
To better understand if and how the interviewees perceive relationship between creativity and
emotions in organizations it is necessary to gain a better understanding of how they defined
creativity in the first place.
4.1.1 The interviewees
The interviewees definition of creativity were rather diverse, to illustrate this I have identified four
different themes. All interviewees used one or two of these themes in their definition of creativity in
organizations. In the image below you can see that which Interviewee used which theme. The
interviewees who used multiple themes are placed in between the two themes and are connected
with an arrow.
Figure 2 How the interviewees defined creativity

30
Six out of twelve interviewees mentioned Problem solving in their definition of creativity, and stated
that this was an essential aspect of creativity. They described creativity as “Finding new
opportunities” (H1), “Solving problems with each other” (B2) and “To what amount can, and, do you
want to show problem solving capabilities” (H4).
With creativity as thinking outside the box most employees meant, changing perspectives and don’t
focus on the existing processes. “I think you shouldn’t think too much in fixed rules” (B4), “Our
framework is more open compared to other organizations. We can be free within the framework”
(H2), “Think outside the box. Is the answer/process already written out, or can you think about it
yourself? “(H3)
Two employees of Decathlon defined creativity as being open for change, essential in this is that
people are open for new ideas and share those with colleagues. “For me creativity is that you get the
freedom to implement changes, and that people are open for those changes” (D2) “By sharing they
enable the qualitative intelligence of the rest of the organization”(D4).
The last theme I identified was employees who see creativity as being flexible. This concept was only
used by employees of Buurtzorg to define creativity. They described it as a; “Combination of
flexibility and being able to quickly react to events”(B3) and “Being flexible and work together in
order to come up with creative solutions” (B1).
4.1.2 Analysis
During the interviews I noticed that most employees struggled to define the concept of creativity,
they paused a lot and it seemed as if they were searching for the ‘right’ answer. This led to lots of
sentences being interrupted half way and starting a totally different sentence, which sometimes even
was contradictive compared to the first sentence.
After this opening question, that was specifically focused on defining creativity, people kept adding
other aspects to their definition of creativity during the rest of the interview. Some of the
interviewees also mentioned that it was a hard question to answer because they normally don’t think
about those things. This gave me the feeling that talking about creativity is not something that is
done often, that it isn’t something where employees focus on sometimes they are not even aware
when in the midst of a creative process.
Six out of twelve interviewees mentioned that ‘problem solving’ is part of their definition of
creativity. However out of those six, none of the four Decathlon employees used this to define
creativity. This could be the result of a social influence on the perspective of the employees. Unlike

31
‘problem solving’, the themes the Decathlon employees used to define creativity are more focused
on the internal process or perspectives than the actual outcome of the creative process.
The theme ‘Being open for change’ was only used by two employees of Decathlon. Those two
employees both worked at Decathlon for over 10 years. This focus on the individual could be
explained by the overall focus of Decathlon to stimulate personal growth within their organization.
Within the organizations I did not find any significant trend between different (management-) layers
or functions, when it comes to defining creativity.
4.2 Did the definition of creativity match with the interviewees perception?
As mentioned in my theoretical framework, I used literature on the topic of creativity to distill a
definition which I could use for my research. Using this definition I could research if there is a gap
between how the interviewees perceive creativity in their organization and the theoretical
perspective on creativity.
This definition contains four different aspects. The first is combining two or more existing pieces of
knowledge. The second is that creativity is a process through time. The third is that it is a process in
which one is undergoing constant internal and external evaluation, and the fourth and last aspect is
that something is only creative when the social context judges it as such.
All the interviewees agreed with the definition and some elaborated on the knowledge aspect of
creativity. “Yes you use the knowledge you have, or gained, during the time working in a team” (B4),
“There is always a starting point from which you can look to improve certain things” (D2).
Some of the interviewees mentioned that the social context did have influence on creativity, this
influence was that it could potentially create a bigger source of knowledge for one to combine. “It
happens often enough that you have contact with colleagues to share ideas, and then come up with
how we can do this” (H2).
Only one of the interviewees stated that he missed something in the definition, he added that;
“Creativity is also a personal discovery, not just that it is something that others did for a long time, if
for yourself the starting point or the way you do something changes then I find that creative as well”
(D4).

32
4.2.2 Analysis
The reason I wanted to test this definition is to find out if the literature matched how employees
perceived the concept of creativity. Based on just asking them what they thought of the definition of
creativity, the answer would be that it was a match. To increase the validity I also matched examples
that were given during the interview to the four aspects of the definition of creativity I distilled from
literature. To illustrate I quoted some of the examples given by the interviewees on each aspect of
creativity in the image underneath.
Based on the reaction of the interviewees and the examples that were given, I conclude that there is
a match between the definition of creativity in literature and how the interviewees interpret
creativity within their organization. Therefore this definition could be used for further research.

33
4.3 Factors that influence creativity according to the employees
In order to get a better understanding of what factors influence creativity within organizations, I have
gathered the positive and negative influences on creativity as they were mentioned during the
interviewees.
4.3.1 Positive influence on creativity
In the images below I have gathered the different factors that positively influence creativity
according to the interviewees. On the left you can see a small description of the positive influence. In
the center there are quotes, to illustrate how the interviewees described this positive influence. On
the far right you can see which interviewee mentioned this positive influence during the interview.
After each aspect that is mentioned I will write a short analysis.
Freedom is mentioned by every interviewee as having a postive influence on their creativity.
Therefore it is probable that this is an essential part of enabelings employees creativity in an
organization. What should be noted is that freedom is a rather subjective term, employees can be
free but if they don’t feel free they won’t act and do as if they were free and vice versa. Later on I will
describe how the feeling of freedom can be influenced by the social context and emotions.
Being engaged seems to have a motivating influence on creativity, employees who are engaged tend
to put more effort in finding new solutions and not give up when a solution does not work the first
try. The creative process takes time and effort, so if an employee takes more time and puts in more
time and effort, this will automatically benefit the creative process. Only one of the employees of

34
Decathlon mentioned that being engaged with the organization had a positive influence on creativity.
However this does not have to mean that the others were not engaged with the organization.
Sharing with colleagues can have a positive influence on creativity in multiple ways. The first is that it
could help motivate an employee to keep working on the idea. The second is that it enlarges the
employees available knowledge. By letting colleagues interact and combine with the idea of the first
employee, it enables others to combine the idea with their own knowledge and experience in order
to come up with new solutions, which the first employee could never think of because he did not
have the required experience or knowledge at his disposal. The sharing of ideas seems essential in
order to enable an organization to become more creative and enabling anyone’s knowledge.
Be Inspired. Just as sharing with colleagues, this factor helps employees to broaden their knowledge
and enables them to come up with new solutions. Be inspired was not mentioned by any of the
interviewees from Handelsbanken. During the interviews, one of the Handelsbanken employees
mentioned that there is a lack of sharing ideas with other parts of the organization of
Handelsbanken. This lack of sharing, and therefore lack of being inspired by eachothers ideas can be
an explanation for why only the employees of Handelsbanken did not mention the influence of
inspiration on creativity.

35
The positive influence of the social context is mentioned at all three organizations, at each location
except for the Handelsbanken office ‘Alkmaar’. The positive influence of the social context on
creativity was mostly by being supportive, motivating and enabling employees to creative. A social
context that was open for new ideas also enabled employees to benefit from other positive
influences of creativity such as sharing ideas with colleagues.
Sufficient resources have a positive influence on creativity because it enables employees to make
time for the creative process. Resources can help people gather the required knowledge or
information in order to solve problems by facilitating workshops or paying for experiments to test
certain hypothesis.
Trust. This factor is an emportant aspect of a factor that was mentioned earlier; Freedom. For one to
receive freedom, trust is needed, managers, organizations or colleagues need to trust their people.
Trust is mentioned as an factor that influences creativity as well. Compared to freedom, it is

36
interesting that not all interviewees of Handelsbanken mentioned trust, however this could be a
result of the interacting relationship between freedom and trust. Perhaps they simply did not think
of trust because for them it has become ‘normal’ that to receive freedom, one requires trust.
External influence can be seen as having a motivating influence on creativity. In the examples given
by the interviewees they describe that the external influence creates a problem that needs a quick
reaction and therefore requires creativity. This helps create room for creativity and alowing
employees to work together in order to solve the problem, giving them resources, a certain amount
of pressure and freedom to come up with new ideas.
Feeling mentally rested, based on literature, this has a postive influence on creativity because when
the brain is rested and not stimulated to much, it has time to do tasks that were overdue, such as
combining cognits in order to come up with new sollutions. The interviewees also experienced that
feeling mentally rested helped them in their creative process, however they were not able to explain
why and how this influence helped them be creative. They just knew it did.

37
4.3.2 Negative influences on creativity
I have used the same method to describe the different factors that have a negative influence on the
creative process according to the interviewees. To increase the validity of this research, I have
chosen to only list the factors that were mentioned by the interviewees to have a negative influence.
I did not automatically add the counterparts of the factors that positively influence creativity,
because those were not specifically mentioned during the interviews.
No room for ideas was mentioned by most interviewees to have a negative influence on creativity.
When there was no room for ideas the interviewees got the feeling their ideas were not valued, not
appreciated, and sometimes could even lead to angry managers or colleagues.
No room for ideas seems to be the counterpart of freedom. This could also be the reason that the
two employees who did not mention the negative influence of no room for ideas on creativity, they
already named its positive counterpart and could potentially find it logical that when freedom is not
there, it has a negative influence on creativity.
Lack of trust was only mentioned by two interviewees in total to have a negative influence on
creativity. These interviewees both worked for Buurtzorg and worked together in the past as well. An
explanation for why only they mentioned this negative influence could be worked the same
organization previously and had bad experiences with their manager who did not show any trust in
her employees at all.

38
Not sharing ideas is mentioned by both account managers of Handelsbanken, and none of the Office
Directors. This could be because of the lack of idea sharing that is facilitated between the offices. The
Office Directors have more meetings with different directors from other offices and will therefore
share more of their ideas in a natural matter, without having to do as much effort as the Account
Managers. This could be the reason why the Account Managers mentioned this aspect as having a
negative influence. The interviewees from Buurtzorg who named Not sharing Ideas as well, both
have a function in which they oversee different teams, which can allow them to see certain patterns
and allows them to see how not sharing ideas between teams, negatively influences creativity within
Buurtzorg.
Stress. Some interviewees mentioned that experiencing stress could influence creativity positively
and negatively, however all agreed that too much stress has only negative influence on the creative
outcome. What is interesting as well is that only one employee of Buurtzorg mentioned stress, and
he was the only one who also worked for other organizations. The other interviewees of Buurtzorg
did not experience stress to be a limiting factor for creativity, or did not mention it during the
interviews. I will elaborate on this negative factor further on in this chapter.

39
Negativity was mentioned by 5 out of 12 employees spread over all three organizations. Negativity
works as a demotivating factor, it drains energy and makes employees want to stop their work on the
current project. They are less open for new insights, and their willingness to share ideas drops.
Distractions. The interviewees who mentioned this factor to have negative influence on creativity, all
had a function in which customers could walk in and start asking questions, distract them in other
ways, or had to do with patients that require acute care. This negatively influences the creative
process because it distracts the brain from the tasks it is supposed to do in order to make new
connections and combinations.
4.4 What influences creativity more; Characteristics or external factors?
After finding out which factors, according to the interviewees, influenced the creative process, I
intended to find what they perceive to have more influence on their creativity. Characteristics or
External influence.
In the image below the answers given by the interviewees can be found.

40
As you can see only one interviewee stated that creativity is being influenced more by external
influence than by characteristics. Five chose for a 50/50 mix, one for a 60/40, three found that
characteristics were a bigger influence on creativity. Two interviewees did not answer this question.
H3 described his choice in a way that matched the answers of the interviewees who chose for
characteristics; “Creativity is something you can do every day. It is something that should be within
your skillset. That you have the skills to see a problem from multiple perspectives. Creativity has to
do with skills.”
One of the interviewees who chose for the mix between characteristics and external influence,
interviewee D3’s answer to this question was; “Are characteristics not formed by external influence?
I used to really believe in personal competence and personal values. But if look at myself, I also see
that I brought a lot of thing with me from my parents, genetically.” This perfectly points out the
argumentation of the other interviewees who chose for the mix as well. They felt as if creativity is
something that is part of you but that external influences such as social context, inspiration or
external motivators can both enable and disable the creativity of a person.
Interviewee H1 is the only one who stated that external factors had more influence on creativity.
“External factors force you to be creative. For example the financial crisis, the whole world was on
fire, and we were forced to look at our processes and find new ways to be able to continue. So I do
think external influences have the most influence on creativity.” With this he highlights the way
external factors can be a motivator for people to become creative.
4.4.2 Analysis
When comparing the answers given to this question with the factors that influence creativity, there
seems to be a discrepancy. Even the interviewees who stated that characteristics have more
influence on creativity, mostly mentioned external factors as influencers of creativity. This
discrepancy between how the employees perceive their creativity and how they thought it was
influenced, was clearly visible during the interviews. This suggests that most interviewees are not
consciously aware of the fact that the factors they mentioned to have positive or negative influence
on creativity are mostly external; (not) sharing ideas, supporting social context, sufficient resources,
be inspired, be trusted, have (no) freedom, being engaged, distractions, negativity from others.
This could further mean that employees are not always consciously aware that external and social
influences have influence on their creativity. When this awareness is lacking, employees are not open
for the positive way this influence could help their creativity, and they will not be able to influence

41
those external influences in a way that it benefits their creativity, and potentially ignore positive
external influences.
4.5 Creativity and emotions in organizations
4.5.1 Introduction
After gaining more insight in what the interviewees defined as creativity within organizations and
what factors have influence on this, it is time to focus on the main question of this research, “Do
employees perceive a relationship between creativity and emotions in an organizational context, and
how does this influence their creativity?”
To do so I have asked the interviewees several questions about their emotions. All interviewees
stated that they work in an organization in where there is enough room to share and show emotions,
especially compared to some of the organizations they worked prior to their current organization.
In this paragraph I have gathered the data that focuses on the relationship between creativity and
emotions in organizations. By doing so I intend to find out if and how the relationship between
creativity and emotions in organizations is perceived and how this influences creativity.
4.5.2 Do the interviewees perceive a relationship between emotions and creativity?
During the interviews I attempted to find out if the interviewees perceived a relationship between
emotions and creativity. Most interviewees already gave examples of emotions that influence their
creativity before I asked about the relationship at all. In the image below, you can find the details of
this.
As can be seen in the image above, all interviewees perceive a relationship between creativity and
emotions. Only two did not mention that emotions influenced their creativity by themselves,
nevertheless, when asked they both stated that they also perceive a relationship between the two.

42
When looking at the earlier mentioned positive and negative influences the relationship between
emotion and creativity becomes even clearer. In the image below I’ve rearranged the factors the
interviewees described to have influence on the creative process. In the far right column, I listed
other emotions that are directly related to emotions according to the interviewees.
The factors that have been made bold, have a direct link with emotions. The factors that are made
bold and cursive, are also influenced by emotions, however this happens in a more indirect way; via
the influence of the social context. I did not find any direct or indirect links to emotions for the other
aspects. I will elaborate on how the direct and indirect relationship between creativity and emotions
influence the process further on.
4.5.3 The direct relationship between emotions and creativity
The direct relationship between creativity was something that was perceived by all interviewees.
They were aware of this relationship and even mentioned certain emotions as influencing factors. I
have written down which emotions they mentioned and how these emotions influence the creative
process.
Trust. According to the interviewees the feeling of being trusted, positively influences creativity.
They reason that it makes them feel more secure about the choices they make. It helps them feel
supported, which helps them feel less scared to make mistakes. They feel as if they can fail without
losing their jobs or getting into trouble. Making the employees willing to share ideas.
On the other hand, when employees experience a lack of trust, their insecurity can be stimulated.
This can result in employees not willing or daring to share ideas anymore, which could negatively
influence the creativity for the whole organization.
Stress. According to the interviewees, stress can have a positive and a negative influence on
creativity. The positive effect comes from giving pressure and creating a necessity for the employee

43
to trigger its creativity; Interviewee B3 explained how a certain amount of pressure helps him
become more creative: “I need some form of stress to be motivated to be creative. If there is no
deadline I'd do absolutely nothing.” A deadline and the stress this causes, seems to act as a motivator
to trigger someone to focus on finding new solutions.
Nevertheless most interviewees described stress as having a negative effect on their creativity. This
has to do how stress is perceived. The interviewees mentioned that when they felt stressed, they felt
as if they have less room or time to think of new solutions, or the stress increases because they get
the feeling they can’t make any mistakes. Next to that, stress could increase fear which increases
stress further. Employees become afraid to take time to work out their ideas, or are afraid of the
consequences if they share their ideas with the people around them, or perhaps the amount of stress
is so high they just think about ‘surviving’ and can’t take the time to reflect on their ideas in a critical
matter. Remember Wallas’s (Sadler-Smith, 2015) theory on creativity in which he describes the
incubation stage as the stage in which the brain is working relentlessly to form new combinations
between cognits. According to Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw (2005), too much stress can
interfere with this process because it reduces awareness for those innovative new combinations
In his interview interviewee D3 gave another example of how stress influenced his creativity; “Yes, I
think stress can lead to making safer choices. If I feel a lot of pressure then I get a certain negative
energy and if you want to make the right choice because you're afraid of a negative review or
something, and then you end up making you decision based on short-term success, instead of long-
term.”
What I found really interesting is the fact that some interviewees experienced less stress compared
to their old jobs, while there were certain factors which presumably raised stress. Those employees
had more responsibility, worked more hours and could be called after business hours. Nevertheless
they did not seem to perceive their situation as stressful, and therefore the negative effect of stress
on creativity did not occur. Somehow the social construct of what causes stress and how stress is
experienced changed for these employees.
Feeling mentally rested. Again, this point was mentioned by almost all of the interviewees. The
interviewees mentioned that they had the best ideas while working out, while relaxing, while
sleeping or during a vacation, however none of the interviewees could find a specific reason for why
this helped them to be creative and come up with ideas. Adding Wallas’ four staged model on the
creative process, it seems to be as if feeling mentally rested benefits the incubation of the idea. The

44
stage in which cognits are combined and associative trains are formed. (Lubart, 2001; Sadler-Smith,
2015; Sawyer, 2003; Wallas, 1926).
Satisfaction. According to the interviewees, the relationship between satisfaction and creativity is
one that becomes clear after the creative process, when the problem, or the new idea emerged.
Interviewee B1 demonstrated how she experienced the feeling of solving the problem, “ When you
solve a problem or find the solution than (sighs out loud, while make a gesture that suggests she lets
something go).” This reaction shows how the event of being creative and solving a problem
influences a person’s emotional state.
Sadness. This emotion seems to work as a motivator for solving the problem. Interviewees B1 and B2
stated that they sometimes felt sad during their work Interviewee B1: “Sad because we don't have
enough personnel, and then people get sick. And you think my god, I worked all day who is going to
do the evening shift" Interviewee B2 adds: "But okay, than we are creative as well, I can say ok, I’ll
take the first four, you take the middle and somebody else takes the last.” Their sadness functioned
as a motivator to solve the problem that is making them sad. This could potentially stimulate them to
come up with more creative solutions, and trigger them to look at the problem from different
perspectives and sharing ideas.
Feeling insecure. Feeling insecure is something that especially limits the social aspect of creativity.
Interviewee B4 explained how she noticed feeling insecure influences creativity; “It can be, that if
you work in a team and you’re insecure, and the team is very dominant, that can be negative. The
dominant people can overshadow the less dominant people. Leaving them scared to share ideas.”
Because of this lack of sharing ideas, employees will not be inspired by each other and the insecure
employee will not dare to share his possibly brilliant solution for the problem.
4.5.4 The indirect relationship between emotions and creativity within organizations
The indirect relationship between emotions and creativity is something that is harder to identify, and
required more interpretation from my side during the analysis of the data. During the interviews I
asked the interviewees if they thought emotions could indirectly influence creativity, this question
turned out to be not effective, or too complex, this resulted in interviewees misinterpreting the
question. Nevertheless the interviewees did gave examples of how emotions indirectly influenced
the creative process through the social context. In my analysis I connect those examples to the
emotion that indirectly relates to creativity.

Perceiving creativity (Bramvan der Lecq)

Perceiving creativity (Bramvan der Lecq)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Último

Último (16)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Perceiving creativity (Bramvan der Lecq)