Creative Problem-Solving Process Styles, Cognitive Work Demands, and Organizational Adaptability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this theoretical article, organizational adaptability is modeled as a four-stage creative problem-solving process, with each stage involving a different kind of cognitive activity. Individuals have different preferences for each stage and thus are said to have different creative problem-solving process “styles.” The Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) assesses these styles and maps onto and interconnects directly with the four stages of this creative problem-solving process. Field research ( n = 6,091) is presented in which the psychometric properties of the CPSP are established and the distribution of styles in different occupations and at different organizational levels are examined. A concrete blueprint is provided for organizational leaders to follow to (a) increase organizational adaptability, (b) simplify and facilitate change management, and (c) address important organizational effectiveness issues at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Real-world application examples are shared and future research opportunities to expand the CPSP’s usefulness are suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it