Alexander S. McKay, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Susan M. T. Coombes, Joseph E. Coombs
{"title":"A meta-analysis of creativity training in organizational settings","authors":"Alexander S. McKay, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Susan M. T. Coombes, Joseph E. Coombs","doi":"10.1111/caim.12605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Creativity training involves instruction to improve learners' capability related to the generation of new and useful ideas. Although prior meta-analyses have examined training's effectiveness, the studies included are almost solely with children or many organizational samples are excluded. Authors of notable reviews on creativity in organizational settings have noted that they were unable to find adequately conducted and reported studies using genuine intervention designs at the individual, team, or organizational level, raising the question: is creativity training research in organizational settings lacking rigor, visibility, or just lacking? In this meta-analysis, we examine creativity training effectiveness using Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation (reactions, learning, behavior, results) and moderators reflecting study rigor and training delivery/content. Results indicate that training is effective overall (<i>g</i> = 0.68) and for learning outcomes (<i>g</i> = 0.73). However, effects are nonsignificant for on-the-job behavior/transfer outcomes (<i>g</i> = 0.34). All moderator analyses were nonsignificant except for timing of outcome evaluation. Studies with a delayed assessment showed a significantly smaller training effect (<i>g</i> = 0.40) than did studies with an immediate assessment (<i>g</i> = 0.86). These results indicate that rigorous creativity training research in organizational settings with behavioral outcomes measured after a delay is lacking. We discuss implications for future research and practical implications for creativity training.</p>","PeriodicalId":47923,"journal":{"name":"Creativity and Innovation Management","volume":"33 4","pages":"587-602"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/caim.12605","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Creativity and Innovation Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12605","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Creativity training involves instruction to improve learners' capability related to the generation of new and useful ideas. Although prior meta-analyses have examined training's effectiveness, the studies included are almost solely with children or many organizational samples are excluded. Authors of notable reviews on creativity in organizational settings have noted that they were unable to find adequately conducted and reported studies using genuine intervention designs at the individual, team, or organizational level, raising the question: is creativity training research in organizational settings lacking rigor, visibility, or just lacking? In this meta-analysis, we examine creativity training effectiveness using Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation (reactions, learning, behavior, results) and moderators reflecting study rigor and training delivery/content. Results indicate that training is effective overall (g = 0.68) and for learning outcomes (g = 0.73). However, effects are nonsignificant for on-the-job behavior/transfer outcomes (g = 0.34). All moderator analyses were nonsignificant except for timing of outcome evaluation. Studies with a delayed assessment showed a significantly smaller training effect (g = 0.40) than did studies with an immediate assessment (g = 0.86). These results indicate that rigorous creativity training research in organizational settings with behavioral outcomes measured after a delay is lacking. We discuss implications for future research and practical implications for creativity training.
期刊介绍:
Creativity and Innovation Management bridges the gap between the theory and practice of organizing imagination and innovation. The journal''s central consideration is how to challenge and facilitate creative potential, and how then to embed this into results-oriented innovative business development. The creativity of individuals, coupled with structured and well-managed innovation projects, creates a sound base from which organizations may operate effectively within their inter-organizational and societal environment. Today, successful operations must go hand in hand with the ability to anticipate future opportunities. Therefore, a cultural focus and inspiring leadership are as crucial to an organization''s success as efficient structural arrangements and support facilities. This is reflected in the journal''s contents: -Leadership for creativity and innovation; the behavioural side of innovation management. -Organizational structures and processes to support creativity and innovation; interconnecting creative and innovative processes. -Creativity, motivation, work environment/creative climate and organizational behaviour, creative and innovative entrepreneurship. -Deliberate development of creative and innovative skills including the use of a variety of tools such as TRIZ or CPS. -Creative professions and personalities; creative products; the relationship between creativity and humour; arts and amp; humanities side of creativity.