Introduction
Alice Hon and Steven Lui attempted to develop a new framework that was designed to help managers in the need to ramp up the worker or the group’s creativity in developing innovative solutions to problems encountered in the workplace. The authors also made the assertion that the framework they developed was geared towards different kinds of business settings, with a special preference for the hospitality industry.
The authors also pointed out a dearth in research findings with regard to the multi-level nature of the development of innovative solutions (Hon & Lui 862). In order to resolve this issue, they proposed a multi-level model of creativity based on the strategic contingency power theory (Hon & Lui 862). In the end, however, they were unable to uncover anything or contribute anything significant for the purpose of understanding the said subject matter. The authors merely espoused opinions and ideas, based on how they interpret other people’s work in the field of creativity and innovation.
An Echo of Past Accomplishments
The authors did not discover anything new and offered nothing significant in terms of the development of an effective framework for managing workers in order to stimulate creativity and innovative thinking (Carvalho et al. 6). It has to be made clear that in the short methodology section, the authors acknowledged the true nature of the study that they tried to undertake. They revealed that the team is going to undertake a review of research literature dealing with innovation and creativity. Nevertheless, if one will remove the two short statements under the methodology section, it creates the impression that Hon and Lui are on a quest to discover new knowledge.
An overview of the first few pages reveals the reason why it was easy to misinterpret Hon and Lui’s intended message. The statements they made under different headings, such as findings, research implications, and organizations, seemed to suggest that they already developed a new way to guarantee innovative and creative thinking. For example, the authors made the declaration, “The proposed theoretical model integrates individual- and group-level uncertainty determinants of creativity and yields a multilevel approach to creativity” (Hon and Lui 862). The authors also described the significance of the model in a manner that seemed to suggest that prior testing was completed.
In the section that was supposed to discuss the limitations of the study, not a single relevant statement was made regarding the constraints or inadequacies. The authors should have at least reiterated that this study was nothing more than a well-made research proposal. On the contrary, the authors highlighted the positive benefits of using the proposed approach. Thus, they made another statement that seemed to be alluding to a research outcome. Finally, in the section discussing originality and perceived value, the authors asserted the significance of the framework in advancing creativity research.
Did Not Contribute Anything Significant
A significant portion of the document was utilized to review literature related to the aforementioned subject matter. The authors highlighted ideas and insights that are well known in the field of creativity and innovation (Hana 82). In fact, even the authors’ proposed multi-level framework was already dissected and analyzed by various research endeavors in the decade of the 1990s (Knudsen and Cokpekin). For example, creativity and innovation are affected by personal and organizational factors (Hon and Lui 869). In one study, the proponents underscored the importance of examining how the organization encourages the interaction of the individual members of a team project and task group or committee (Carvalho et al. 6).
The authors’ insight regarding the strategic contingency power theory of creativity was derived from a study conducted in the 1970s (Hon and Lui 883). For example, the assertion that an individual or a team of workers are going to acquire power and influence if they are able to develop and apply innovative solutions is nothing new (Silva 7). This line of reasoning was examined and documented several decades earlier (Hon and Lui 884).
A Better Way of Presenting the Proposal
One can make the argument that the presentation of the authors’ ideas was not a deliberate act meant to deceive people into thinking the researchers were able to discover something new and made significant contributions to the pursuit of knowledge concerning innovation and creativity. One can also argue that the misinterpretation was the inadvertent result of the authors’ decision to view the development of a well-conceived proposal as an achievement in itself. Nevertheless, it is imperative to point out that Hon and Lui’s proposed framework was not without flaws.
Combining insights related to the importance of group factors and the need to develop a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams, the authors’ immediately concluded that the creation of a multi-dimensional framework was the missing link (Hon and Lui 885). One can make the counter-argument that a more practical approach necessitates the discussion of a successful implementation of a multi-level approach in the context of a large business environment (Omisore and Nweke 164).
In the end, it was made clear that the authors were merely expressing their opinion with regard to creativity and innovation-related issues. Aside from the failure to offer anything new, the study in question also failed in terms of the need to provide a coherent presentation of their ideas. It was confusing and difficult to comprehend the authors’ intended message. For example, the authors were overreaching when they decided to develop a framework that was expected to work in different business settings. However, they also included the statement that the said formula for success is also expected to work effectively when applied to the hospitality industry. The authors did not offer any explanation as to the significance of developing a solution geared towards helping the hospitality industry. In addition, the authors did not discuss the unique circumstances and work conditions that made it more difficult to stimulate creativity and innovative thinking in the said industry.
Conclusion
At first glance, it seemed as if the authors were on a quest to discover a solution to the dearth of innovation and creative thinking in the workplace. In fact, the presentation of the ideas made the reader feel as if the authors succeeded in developing an effective framework to solve the aforementioned problem. However, a careful review of the document revealed that the proponents of the study were merely able to develop a well-constructed research proposal. They did not offer anything new. The framework that they proposed as a solution to the problem was not discussed in detail. It would have been more persuasive if they allotted time to discuss how a multi-dimensional approach was utilized in a real-world setting or at least in a quantitative or qualitative research framework. Thus, the paper leaves much to be desired. The proponents of the study must rewrite the document in order to clarify the intended outcome of the review of related literature.
Works Cited
Carvalho, Andriele et al. “Creativity Management Tools and Their Organizational Influence.” International Journal of Organizational Innovation, vol. 5, no. 1, 2012, pp. 6-18.
Hana, Urbancova. “Competitive Advantage Achievement Through Innovation and Knowledge.” Journal of Competitiveness, vol. 5, no. 1, 2013, pp. 82-94.
Hon, Alice and Steven Lui. “Employee Creativity and Innovation in Organizations: Review, Integration, and Future Directions for Hospitality Research.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 28, no. 5, 2016, pp. 862-885.
Knudsen, Mette and Ozge Cokpekin. Does Organizational Creativity Really Lead to Innovation? 2011, Web.
Omisore, Bernard and Augustina Nweke. “The Influence of Power and Politics in Organization.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science, vol. 4, no. 7, 2014, pp. 164-181.
Silva, Alberto. “An Integrated Leadership Theory.” Journal of Perspective in Organizational Behavior, Management & Leadership, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 5-9.