Introduction global players. With this paper, it will be


has been in the spotlight for many years. Lot of scholars have been questing
its applications and implications among multiple topics. Particularly in
business and cultural studies, globalisation have been a remarkable change. Furthermore,
globalisation have been breaking barriers as result of having a wider cultures
rather than isolated and notable passages of people from different cultures. (Fee & Gray, 2012). The global business
environment changed radically as well as the culture. In one hand, firms have
nowadays distinctly more opportunities and less barriers to deal with,
facilitating the exchange of funds, ideas and people. On the other hand, the
culture has been shaped by different forces. Hence, new form of culture
emerged, opening borders and traditionalism. But not less important, global
cultures emerged, creating so a global mindset, which is giving new opportunity
for global players. With this paper, it will be investigated whether creativity
is related to culture and how the two variables work in global-born firms landscape.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now














Firms globally born

Firms witnessed
new opportunities to go internationally (Gabrielsson, Kirpalani, Dimitratos,
Solberg, & Zucchella, 2008; Patel, Fernhaber, McDougall-Covin, & van
der Have, 2014 in Nemkova 2017). This caught the attention to many
first-movers, which then have undertaken international operations and applied
international strategies of business and organisational management, becoming
successful and good case practices.  Knight
et al (2004) suggested to define early
adopters of internationalisation or born
global firms to the ones that operate internationally from early stage of their
development. (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004) The just-mentioned scholars added then,
these firms are characterised by a lack of financial and human resources but stand
out high degree of knowledge,
innovativeness and capabilities that allow the firms to perform in foreign
markets since the beginning. (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004) In addiction, it seems to be
important also the dimensions, which donate flexibility enough to support the
foreign success. (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004)

As mentioned
before, the internationalisation phase from the very beginning of their
founding (of born global) is enhanced firstly by globalisation, which
facilitated borderless fundamental operations, such as sourcing, marketing and
product developments, and the flourish technological evolution, which
interconnected other fundamental operations, likely logistics, communication
technologies and production methods (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Therefore, without a highly
interconnected global environment, firms could not have been so flexible, and
nonetheless, knowledge, innovation and organisational capabilities have been
essentials. In this regard, evolutionary economics elucidate the point by
implying “superior ability of certain firms to sustain innovation and, as a
result, create new knowledge leads to the development of organisational
capabilities, consisting of critical competences and embedded routines. (Nelson
& Winter 1982; Knight & Cavusgil 2004) This theory belongs to the
paradigm of resource-based view, which formulated how firms may achieve a
sustainable competitive advantage. (Barney 1991)


Human creativity
has been always studied by scholars, whose intentions were to formulate
theories that channelled an abstract human activity. Majorly, the approach used
has an individualistic paradigm, which aim to discover how individuals produce
creative ideas and how this production works. This lens glimpses on
psychological factors, as well, cognitive and behavioural factors.


Amabile (1988)
Gryskiewicz (1987) have extrapolated a model, which frame factors and process
of creation of creativity. According to their research, three are the main
categories (domain-relevant skills, creativity- relevant skills and intrinsic
task motivation) that work along of the creativity process.  (T M Amabile, 1988) In spite, among them it is
described the process of creative ideas making in connections of the components
mentioned above. The suggested model gives indeed a wide picture of the process
of individual creativity and the related process of innovation within
organisations (T. M Amabile, 1988). However, the research has
been recently reviewed, both because of latest theories and critiques and
because of the evolution of organisational behaviour. (Teresa M. Amabile & Pratt, 2016)

The reviewed
formula has kept fundamental notions of the previous model (Amabile 1988), but
it includes now other factors (Staw 1990, Simonton 1999, Woodman et al. 1993,
Hargadon & Bechky 2006, Drazin et al. 1999 in Amabile&Pratt 2016) that
influence the processes, such as the external environment, affections and
meaningfulness of work. (T. M. Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The revision consisted to
include an “open system – subject to social, economic, cultural and other
influences outside of the organisation as suggested by Drazin et al (1999) and
Woodman et al (1993)” (T M Amabile, 1988). A matter of fact, the
external environment, specifically the environment directly affects the
components, which in turn influence the process of creativity. Moreover, the
multiplicative adjective given by the authors stands for another conceptual
review (Figure 2): “It is multiplicative because all the components are
necessary for innovation (none can be zero) and higher is the level, greater is
the success of innovation.” (Teresa M. Amabile & Pratt, 2016)

Creativity and Culture

Contrary to the
above, some scholars’ views claim that creativity is highly linked to the
socio-cultural system rather than a solely individual psychological process.
Rudowicz (2003) states that “creativity understood as a mental process cannot
be isolated from the social-cultural systems in which the individual
functions.” (Rudowicz, 2003). Csikszentmihalyi (1999)
asserts that creativity must not be grasped as a mental process only, but must
be considered as cultural and social
phenomenon. Milestones in the researches have been conducted by several
scholars. In Creativity and Culture: two-way interactions (2003) of E.
Rudowicz, she suggested that important investigations are done by Barron, 1988;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1990, 1996, 1999; Lubart & Sternberg, 1988;
Simonton, 1988, 1991, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Ludwig, 1992, who
aimed to understand the interactions between culture and creativity with a
dynamic-fold. Particularly, a step forward has been done by Csikszentmihalyi,
who attempted to demonstrate that creativity is an outcome from the synergy of three
actors: “the culture, which stores and
transmits the selected ideas, values and beliefs to the next generations; the
social system, which selects which behaviours, values and information (a new
meme) are worth preserving; the individual, who brings about some
transformation to the social and cultural domain” (Csikszentmihalyi 1988,
1999 in Rudowicz 2003). Thus, creativity could be seen not only with an
individualistic paradigm, but a result of socio – cultural complexity. For
instance, a question emerged in Hennessey and Amabile (2010) “Do models,
theories and paradigms by scholars of the Western world adequately work for
different cultures?”. The validity of these paradigms is indeed not assured to
be suitable for cross-cultural applications yet. In her examination stated that
creative expression is universally human phenomenon (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Rudowicz, 2003) however it has a complex and
heterogeneous derivation from the diversity of cultures. This implies, also the
meaning of originality and novelty of
ideas or of products are understood
and judged as appropriate by a group of
people within the specific socio-cultural context.(Rudowicz, 2003) To some extent, newness in the occidental world does not
assume the same significance in the oriental world. (Rudowicz, 2003). Furthermore, the cultural
effects on creativity also determinate how creativity is perceived and
sometimes when creativity is allowed. (Weiner 2000 cited in Rudowicz 2003).
Another example refers to the researchers on advantages and disadvantages of
multi-cultural mindsets and teams can bring to organisations. (Tran et al.,
2011; Van Laer and Janssens, 2011 cited in Fee & Gray, 2012). For instance, expatriates
experience a process of cognitive change (Fee & Gray, 2012), or rather they adjust new
cultural codes and practices in the old own setting. According to Fee &
Gray (2012) expatriates are more likely oriented to be creative thinker because
of this cultural adaptation process.

Discussion and

globalisation’s effect, the process of standardisation and homogenisation, the
global landscape and practices are becoming more isomorphic so as innovation
practices. To respond to the external changes, global firms must be both highly
flexible and to cultivate a high-performance organisational practice that
enhance innovation and creativity within the firm. Creativity plays an
important role in terms of activation of innovation, firm performance and
competitive advantage. According to the above skills, knowledge and motivation
(extrinsic and intrinsic) are essential to make the process successful (T M Amabile, 1988). Therefore, employees will be
more oriented to produce innovation. In spite, Amabile (1988) has mentioned
some qualities (9) that positively generate creativity, Freedom and a good
leadership are the most important. From her research it has been pointed out
that absolute freedom and an inspiring and engaging leadership, not only make
creativity flourishing, but also increase the both motivation. (T M Amabile, 1988) More importantly, this
quality is in accordance to the characteristic of early adopters of
internationalisation, because to be flexible to the uncertainty the
organisational capabilities are risen in the beginning to became then suitable
for the several markets. (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004) In Nemkova (2017) is stated
that marketing creativity is related to
the ability to do something knowing the result and allowing ideas to emerge
during the process itself (Im & Workman2004 in Nemkova, 2017). So, the
organisational management must be dynamic and fosters creativity among their
employees. Conversely, Human Resources practices, either inhibitory organisational
culture can be diametral for the individual creativity process, regardless the
flexibility of the firm. For instance, inappropriate rewards system or a tight
hierarchical system, limit the flow (T M Amabile, 1988; Teresa M. Amabile & Pratt,
2016; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004).  Nonetheless, culture is other force that
channel creativity. To some scholars, the socio contest is more important that
small picture of the individual cognitive process. In the specific case of early adopters of internationalisation,
any studies have been occurred that postulated theories of direct influence of
culture in creativity. However, starting with the assumption that cultural
variety bring several benefits, it is assumed here that multi-cultural
environments enact “the external environment” component of Amabile (1988;2016)
which function as bridge with the surrounding culture mentioned by Csikszentmihalyi
and Rudowicz (Rudowicz, 2003) Leung et al (2008) have
conducted a research wherein it has been demonstrated that multiple cultures
foster creative behaviour (Leung 2008 cited in Amabile &Pratt 2016). To
wrap up, creativity, and more generally innovation play an important role in
firms born globally. Companies have commonly shown great organisational and
innovativeness capabilities and these drives undoubtedly the firm performance
successfully. However, it has not been possible to assured whether exist a
global culture that encourage the winning creativity in global born firms.

















Annotated Bibliography

T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research
in Organizational Beharior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). JAI PRess. Retrieved

Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The
dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations:
Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36,

Appadurai, A. (1990), Disjuncture and
Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory, Culture & Society, no.
7:295–310Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage. Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120

Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources
and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120

Drazin, R., Glynn, M., &
Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations:
A sense making perspective. Academy of Management Review286–307

A., & Gray, S. J. (2012). The expatriate-creativity hypothesis: A
longitudinal field test. Human Relations, 65(12), 1515–1538.

Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B.
(2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field
study of problem solving at work. Organization Science484–500.

B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61(1), 569–598.

G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities,
and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2),

Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An
Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA


E. (2003). Creativity and Culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 273–290.

Staw, B. M. (1990). An
evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. In M. A. West, & J. L.
Farr (Eds.),      Innovation and
creativity at workChichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., &
Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of
Management Review293–321.


Model of Individual creativity process (1988)

2 Model
(Reviewed) of individual creativity process and organisational innovation