Public servants’ creativity: salient stimulators and inhibitors a longitudinal qualitative digital diary study

References

• Adler, P. S., and B. Borys. 1996. “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 61. doi:10.2307/2393986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. 1988. ”A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 edited by B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings, 123–167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, N., and N. King. 1993. “Innovation in Organizations.” In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by C. Cooper & I. Robertson, 86–104. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. R., K. Potocnik, and K. Zhou. 2014. “Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-The- Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework.” Journal of Management 40 (5): 1297–1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, M., and G. R. Oldham. 2006. “The Curvilineair Relation Between Experiences Creative Time Pressure and Creativity: Moderating Effects of Openness to Experience and Support for Creativity.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (4): 963–970. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borins, S. 2000. “Encouraging Innovation in the Public Sector.” Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (3): 310–319. doi:10.1108/14691930110400128.
   Google Scholar
• Borins, S. 2006. The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business in Government.
   Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A. 2002. “Public and Private Management: What’s the Difference?” Journal of Management Studies 39 (1): 97–122. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B., and P. Scott. 1996. “Bureaucratic Red Tape and Formalization: Untangling Conceptual Knots.” The American Review of Public Administration 26 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1177/027507409602600101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B., and M. K. Feeney. 2011. Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Theory and Research. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, L., and S. P. Osborne. 2013. “Risk and Innovation: Towards a Framework for Risk Governance in Public Services.” Public Management Review 15 (2): 186–208. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.707681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bysted, R., and J. R. Hansen. 2015. “Comparing Public and Private Sector Employees’ Innovative Behaviour: Understanding the Role of Job and Organizational Characteristics, Job Types, and Subsectors.” Public Management Review 17 (5): 698–717. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.806576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. A., and B. Bozeman. 2012. “Organizational Risk Aversion: Comparing the Public and Non-Profit Sectors.” Public Management Review 14 (3): 377–402. doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.637406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinar, E., P. Trott, and C. Simms. 2019. “A Systematic Review of Barriers to Innovation Processes.” Public Management Review 21 (2): 264–290. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikzenmihalyi, C. 2013. Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, H., V. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2016. “Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda.” Public Administration 94 (1): 146–166. doi:10.1177/0734371x18760124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeHart-Davis, L., and S. K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 15 (1): 133–148. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui00.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeHart-Davis, L. 2007. “The Unbureaucratic Personality.” Public Administration Review 67 (5): 892–903. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00776.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeHart-Davis, L. 2009. “Green Tape and Public Employee Rule Abidance: Why Organizational Rule Attributes Matter.” Public Administration Review 69 (5): 901–910. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02039.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeney, M. K., and L. DeHart-Davis. 2009. “Bureaucracy and Public Employee Behavior.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 29 (4): 311–326. doi:10.1177/0734371x09333201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieske, H., I. van Meerkerk, and A. van Buuren. 2018. “The Impact of Innovation and Optimization on Public Sector Performance. Testing the Contribution of Connective, Ambidextrous and Learning Capabilities.” Public Performance & Management Review 42 (2): 432–460. doi:10.1080/15309576.2018.1470014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino, F., and D. Ariely. 2011. “The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1738311.
   Google Scholar
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., S. Jilke, A. L. Olsen, and L. Tummers. 2017. “Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.” Public Administration Review 77 (1): 45–56. doi:10.1111/puar.12609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, J. 2005. “Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present.” Public Money and Management 25 (1): 27–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessey, B. A. 2010. “The Creativity—motivation Connection.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg, 342–365. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511763205.022.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, G., D. Van Knippenberg, C. H. Chen, and C. A. Sacramento. 2011. “How Does Bureaucracy Impact Individual Creativity? a Cross-Level Investigation of Team Contextual Influences on Goal Orientation–creativity Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal 54 (3): 624–641. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.61968124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hon, A. H. Y., and S. S. Lui. 2016. “Employee Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28 (5): 862–885. doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2014-0454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgraaf, G., P. M. Kruyen, and S. Van Thiel. 2021. ”Public Sector Creativity as the Origin of Public Sector Innovation: A Taxonomy and Future Research Agenda.” Public Administration Early cite. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/padm.12778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgraaf, G. 2022. “Public Sector Creativity: Triggers, Practices and Ideas for Public Sector Innovations: A Longitudinal Digital Diary Study.” Public Management Review 1–22. doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2037015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulzebosch, M., H. Jonkhart, and S. Van der Maarl. 2017. “Een Doorkijk in Het Personeelsbestand van Het Rijk: Wat Vertellen de Cijfers?” Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Accessed 23 Sep 2021. https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/255579/eenplusdoorkijkplusinplushetpluspersoneelsbestandplusvanplushetplusrijk.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hyers, L. L. 2018. Diary Methods: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• James, J., and D. Drown. 2012. “Organizations and Creativity: Trends in Research, Status of Education and Practice, Agenda for the Future.” In Handbook of Organizational Creativity, edited by M. D. Mumford, 89–101. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, J., B. Bozeman, and M. Gaughan. 2020. “Fear in Bureaucracy: Comparing Public and Private Sector Workers’ Expectations of Punishment.” Administration & Society 52 (2): 233–264. doi:10.1177/0095399718783647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., and R. J. Sternberg. 2010. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khessina, O. M., J. A. Goncalo, and V. Krause. 2018. “It’s Time to Sober Up: The Direct Costs, Side Effects and Long-Term Consequences of Creativity and Innovation.” Research in Organizational Behavior 38 (1): 107–135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.003.
   Google Scholar
• King, N. 2004. “Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text.” In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, edited by C. Cassell & G. Symon, 257–270. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kozbelt, A., R. A. Beghetto, and M. A. Runco. 2010. ”Theories of Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by J. C. Kaufman, and R. J. Sternberg, 66–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kruyen, P. M., and M. Van Genugten. 2017. “Creativity in Local Government: Definition and Determinants.” Public Administration 95 (3): 825–841. doi:10.1111/padm.12332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruyen, P. M., S. A.C. Keulemans, and R. T. Borst. 2019. “Searching for the Renaissance Bureaucrat: A Longitudinal Computer-Assisted Study of Personality Descriptors in Government Vacancies.” International Public Management Journal 33 (1): 22–44. doi:10.1108/ijpsm-07-2019-0195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruyen, P. M. 2020. “Diary Application.” Journal of Open Source Software 5 (55): 1–3. doi:10.21105/joss.02506.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuipers, B. S., M. Higgs, W. Kickert, L. Tummers, J. Grandia, and J. Van der Voet. 2014. “The Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review.” Public Administration 92 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/padm.1204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield, R. 1973. “Bureaucracy and Centralization: An Examination of Organizational Structure.” Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (4): 477. doi:10.2307/2392200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masood, A., and M. A. Nisar. 2021. “Repairing the State: Policy Repair in the Frontline Bureaucracy.” Public Administration Review. doi:10.1111/puar.1341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D. 2012. Handbook of Organizational Creativity. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nählinder, J. 2013. “Understanding Innovation in a Municipal Context: A Conceptual Discussion.” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 15 (1): 315–325. doi:10.5172/impp.2013.15.3.315.
   Google Scholar
• Ohly, S., S. Sonnentag, and F. Pluntke. 2006. “Routinization, Work Characteristics and Their Relationships with Creative and Proactive Behaviors.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 27 (1): 257–279. doi:10.1002/job.376.
   Google Scholar
• Ohly, S., S. Sonnentag, C. Niessen, and D. Zapf. 2010. “Diary Studies in Organizational Research: An Introduction and Some Practical Recommendations.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9 (2): 79–93. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overman, S., and S. Van Thiel. 2016. “Agencification and Public Sector Performance: A Systematic Comparison in 20 Countries.” Public Management Review 18 (4): 611–635. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1028973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pots, J., and T. Kastelle. 2010. “Public Sector Innovation Research: What’s Next?” Organization & Management 12 (1): 122–137. doi:10.5172/impp.12.2.122.
   Google Scholar
• Puccio, G. J., and J. F. Cabra. 2010. ”Organizational Creativity.” In Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological Social, and Spiritual Perspectives, edited by R. Richards, 25–53. Washington: American Psychology Association.
   Google Scholar
• Radcliffe, L. S. 2013. “Qualitative Diaries: Uncovering the Complexities of Work-Life Decision-Making.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 8 (2): 163–180. doi:10.1108/qrom-04-2012-1058.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, H. G. 1993. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, H. G. 1999. “Using Comparisons of Public and Private Organizations to Assess Innovative Attitudes Among Members of Organizations.” Public Productivity and Management Review 23 (2): 130–149. doi:10.2307/3380775.
   Google Scholar
• Rangarajan, N. 2008. “Evidence of Different Types of Creativity in Government: A Multimethod Assessment.” Public Performance and Management Review 32 (1): 132–163. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576320106.
   Google Scholar
• Reis, H. T., and S. L. Gable. 2000. ”Event Sampling and Other Methods for Studying Everyday Experience.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, edited by H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd, 190–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, R. 2007. “Everyday Creativity: Our Hidden Potential.” In Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological, Social and Spiritual Perspectives, edited by R. E. Richards, 43–68. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Salge, T. O., and A. Vera. 2012. “Benefiting from Public Sector Innovation: The Moderating Role of Customer and Learning Orientation.” Public Administration Review 72 (4): 550–559. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02529.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalley, C. E., and L. L. Gilson. 2004. “What Leaders Need to Know: A Review of Social and Contextual Factors That Can Foster or Hinder Creativity.” The Leadership Quarterly 15 (1): 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soriono de Alencar, E. M. L. 2012. “Creativity in Organizations: Facilitators and Inhibitors.” In Handbook of Organizational Creativity, edited by M. D. Mumford, 122–148. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, P. E., and L. L. Meier. 2014. “Methodologies for the Study of Organizational Behavior Processes: How to Find You Keys in the Dark.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (8): 1109–1119. doi:10.1002/job.1966.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. 1999. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Symon, G. 1998. ”Qualitative Research Diaries.” In Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell & G. Symon, 94–117. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Torfing, J. 2018. ”Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector: The Argument.” Public Management Review 1–11. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, R. 2000. ”Remembering What Happened: Memory Errors and Survey Reports.” In The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, edited by A. A. Stone, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman and V. S. Cain, 29–47. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L., A. L. Olsen, S. Jilke, and S. G. Grimmelikhuijsen. 2016. “Introduction to the Virtual Issue on Behavioral Public Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 1–3 doi:10.1093/jopart/muv039.
   Google Scholar
• Van Thiel, S. 2001. Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Visser, E. L., and P. Kruyen. 2021. “Discretion of the Future: Conceptualizing Everyday Acts of Collective Creativity at the Street-Level.” Public Administration Review 81 (4): 676–690. doi:10.1111/puar.13389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, J. P., and E. M. Berman. 1997. “Administrative Creativity in Local Government.” Public Productivity & Management Review 20 (4): 446. doi:10.2307/3380684.
   Google Scholar
• Woodman, R. W., J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin. 1993. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.” Academy of Management Review 18: 293–321. doi:10.2307/258761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., K. Verhoest, E. Ongaro, and S. Van Thiel. 2014. “Innovation-Orientated Culture in the Public Sector: Do Managerial Autonomy and Result Control Lead to Innovation?” Public Management Review 16 (1): 45–66. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.790273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuriev, A., O. Boiral, and D. Talbot. 2021. “Is There a Place for Employee-Driven Pro-Environmental Innovations? the Case of Public Organizations.” Public Management Review 1–28. doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1900350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, J., and C. E. Shalley. 2003. “Research on Employee Creativity: A Critical Review and Directions for Future Research.” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 22: 165–217. doi:10.2307/3069410.
   Google Scholar