The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams
Abstract
Research on creativity in organizations has revealed a variety of important paradoxes that seem fundamental to the nature of creativity itself. One such paradox is the tension between freedom and constraint in the creative process. Where some theorists have described the ideal creative process as unstructured, open-ended, and free of external limitations, others have found that creative individuals and teams can benefit from constraints. The purpose of this study is to make sense of this tension in the literature by investigating the ways in which constraints both inhibit and enhance work team creativity. Based on inductive field research with four research and development teams in a multinational corporation known for innovation, this study addresses the research questions: (a) What are the key constraints experienced by R&D teams and what impact do these have on team creativity?, and (b) Under what conditions do constraints inhibit or enhance R&D team creativity? This research uncovered a variety of salient constraints that can be organized into two broad categories: process constraints and product constraints. While process and product constraints were found to have differential impacts on team creativity, this study also revealed that under different circumstances, these constraints affected team creativity differently. Specifically, enduring team dynamics patterns, characterized as enabling dynamics and disabling dynamics, played a vital role in how teams interpreted and responded to constraints, and therefore whether constraints inhibited or enhanced team creativity. Teams experiencing the right kinds of constraints in the right environments, and which saw opportunity in constraints, benefitted creatively from them. The results of this research challenge the assumption that constraints kill creativity, demonstrating instead that for teams able to accept and embrace them, there is freedom in constraint.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416 · Cited by 1,475
George, J. M. (2007) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/078559814 · Cited by 781
Creativity in the R&D Laboratory
Amabile, T., & Gryskiewicz, S. (1987) · doi:10.35613/ccl.1987.1088 · Cited by 295
Cited by
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosso, B. D.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-03-05
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 551-585
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2165600628
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 12.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840613517600
- The paper
- Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613517600
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.