Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The aim of this paper is to survey the main creativity models, mediators as well as the enhancers of organizational creativity, all from a psychological perspective. In addition, the paper seeks to identify gaps in knowledge of organizational creativity. Aspects of creativity that require closer inspection are described. Design/methodology/approach A review of the literature on creativity within organizations from a psychological perspective was undertaken. A large number of research papers, mainly published after 1985 covering creativity and/or innovation, were identified and critically evaluated for relevance to the paper's purpose, and were judged on sufficient scholarship in order to create a narrative literature review. Findings Despite the great amount of psychological research on creativity and innovation, only a few models and theories appear to be defined. Moreover, their predictive value and incorporation of possible influencing factors is limited. In general, it can be concluded that the field of creativity requires more in‐depth research as well as a synthesis of results of various studies and models in order to effectively develop, promote and predict creativity within organizations. Research limitations/implications The review focuses mainly on psychological aspects of creativity in organizations as published in research papers. In future studies for determining generic theories and conclusions, other aspects, e.g. sociological, cultural, economic and biological, should be taken into account. Originality/value A large and diverse number of studies on creativity in organizations have been conducted, but a comprehensive review paper on organizational creativity is still lacking. This paper supplies this need for survey. The findings of the current paper provide a well documented framework in addressing creativity enhancers in organizational environments. Furthermore, it articulates suggestions for further research and can be a good starting‐point for newcomers in this research domain.
Klijn et al. (Sat,) studied this question.