SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Our first issue of 2014 starts with a small mini-special on the challenges, experiences and future directions of facilitating creativity and innovation in hospitality organizations, guest edited by Marc Stierand from EHL Lausanne. The special consists of two parts.

The first part presents the research of Florian Aubke reporting on the career paths and culinary network of Michelin-starred chefs in Germany. Using social network analysis, the career trajectories of 262 chefs were analysed in order to define the most central and thus influential chefs/restaurants in the network and to uncover factors which may help in explaining the observed structure of these networks. The results demonstrate that ties between chefs with different star ratings occur more often than between chefs with similar star ratings, suggesting that fewer ties are more beneficial for individual creative productivity and that knowledge transfers are more likely to happen between chefs with different levels of experience, skills and creative ability. The study highlights that centrality not only influences creativity, but creativity also influences centrality, signifying that the domain is more likely to invest in ties with extraordinarily creative chefs, who in turn have to try retaining their creativity despite the surrounding network, for example, by being selective in their ties.

In the second part of the special, Jillian MacBryde, Viktor Dörfler and Marc Stierand argue that current conceptualizations of creativity and innovation in haute cuisine are strongly guided by the ideas of operations management and do not represent the predominant guiding principles of creativity and innovation described by creative chefs. Based on in-depth interviews with world-renowned chefs, their findings show that the ‘creativity part’ of the innovation process is an embodied experience often guided by intuition, and the ‘innovation part’ is a process of social evaluation greatly dependent on the perception, knowledge and value judgement of the testers from the leading restaurant guides. Hence, their study contributes to an increased understanding of personal creativity and the innovation process in haute cuisine, validates the socio-cultural systems view of creativity and suggests a model that accounts for the socio-cultural dimensions of haute cuisine. The main implications of the findings go beyond the haute cuisine sector and open areas for future research on creativity and intuition more generally.

This issue further includes three contributions from our regular ‘pipeline’, as well as a paper which was originally presented at the 2012 CIM Community Meeting in Berlin.

Vlad Glăveanu and Todd Lubart's research is dedicated to an exploration of decentring the creative self in a study of how others make creativity possible in creative professional fields. Theirs is an interesting contribution since the psychology of creativity has long been primarily concerned with the study of individual creators. The research included interviews with 60 professionals working in science and creative industries in France. The findings reveal that social interactions play a key formative, regulatory, motivational and informational role in relation to creative work. From ‘internalized’ to ‘distant’, other people are an integral part of the equation of creativity calling for a de-centration of the creative self and its re-centration in a social space of actions and interactions.

In his paper titled ‘A Structural Equations Model of Leaders' Social Intelligence and Creative Performance’, Afzalur Rahim reports on his study into the testing of the relationship between leaders' social intelligence and their creative performance in the US. Among others, results show that supervisors with greater social intelligence contributed more to creative performance.

Anna Schulze, Melanie Stade and Janine Netzel already presented their research on social conflicts in innovation processes to us in Berlin in 2012. Their study examines innovation and the variables of innovation success in the life sciences; it tests a conflict management model and examines the impact of both conflict type and conflict management style on innovation performance. This study surveyed 152 basic and applied researchers on their conflict management style through a multi-method approach incorporating both survey and qualitative methods. The substantive aspects and relational effectiveness of conflict management styles were compared, considering their number of publications and patents, problem solution quality, project newness, conflict de-escalation and communication. Applied researchers showed significantly more domination than did basic researchers, and a dominating conflict management style was significantly related to project newness. Moreover, problem solving was not always the most successful conflict management style. These findings have important practical implications for conflict management training and can help managers and researchers strengthen their co-operation and improve productivity.

Last but not least, Simone Corsi and Alberto Di Minin offer an interpretation of a subset of Reverse Innovation within the Disruptive Innovation Theory. They argue that the combination of these two theories provides a useful framework to look at emerging economies as sources of new products and technological solutions, and also provide a new categorization of Disruptive Innovation considering a geographical dimension and future research directions.

After enjoying the mix of articles in this issue, do keep an eye on our website and new Facebook site for the winners of the Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger Best Paper Award published in CIM in 2013!