The Role of HRM as an Enabler of Creativity: Initial Research Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the strategic role of HRM as a facilitator of more creative behaviours amongst employees. Although creativity has broadly been recognised as an essential ingredient of long-term organisational success (Aleksić et al, 2016; Curado, 2017), evidence suggests that much remains hidden in the current state of research (Martin and Wilson, 2017). For instance, it is still unclear whether and how creativity enhancing strategies can reduce the negative effect of less creative behaviours of employees on their performance and overall organisational effectiveness. The scant research to date highlights that certain Human Resource Development (HRD) interventions can evoke an opportunity of organisational and personal growth, due to developing and unleashing untapped human expertise (Gilley et al, 2011). However, no previous work has empirically tested the fit between strategic HRD and individual creative behaviours (Loewenberger, 2016). This paper adopts a mixed method research design, demonstrating a more inclusive approach to the challenge of human creativity at work. By encouraging participants to complete a multi-faceted self-assessment tool and engage in creative HRD interventions (workshop) we aim to detect changes in individual creative behaviour. Quantitative data is based on analysis of individual responses to the self-assessment tool, and qualitative data emerges from the workshop. The preliminary results of the pilot study suggest that participants find such a research approach a useful exercise, contributory to their creative thinking. As a result of the study, a model of creativity will be generated, grounded on the insights from the dynamic componential model of creativity (Amabile and Pratt, 2016), the model of creative problem-solving (Treffinger et al, 2008), and the concept of human flourishing (McCormack and Titchen, 2014). A complex self-assessment tool will be developed, allowing for the simultaneous and in-depth evaluation of various creativity-related parameters: personality traits, self-concept characteristics, and perceptions of the work environment. Research findings will be published in 3-star journals and a PhD thesis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".