A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Radical and Incremental Creativity: Antecedents and Processes
Lucy L. Gilson and Nora Madjar
University of Connecticut
This study extends creativity theory and research by differentiating between 2 distinct forms of creative
performance: radical and incremental. It also examines the differential effects of certain antecedents on
these two forms of creativity. Results demonstrate that intrinsic motivation, problem-driven, and abstract
theory-related creative ideas are associated mostly with radical creativity, whereas extrinsic motivation
and ideas that are solution-driven and developed on the basis of concrete practices are linked more closely
to incremental creativity. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Keywords: creativity, motivation, problem-driven, solution-driven
Considerable evidence suggests that employee creativity makes
an important contribution to organizational innovation, effective-
ness, and survival (Amabile, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993), and a vast number of organizations are placing a premium
on creativity as a driver of success (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006).
The value of creativity is rarely debated, with theorists going so far
as to suggest that the quality of human life is greatly influenced by
the creative contributions of individuals (Mumford & Gustafson,
1988). However, in empirical research, creativity has been pre-
dominantly examined as a broad and unitary construct (Shalley,
Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Unsworth, 2001). To this end, creativity
is generally defined as the production of ideas about products or
procedures that are novel or original and potentially useful or
practical (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Shalley, 1991).
Creativity may be required by any job (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum,
2000); however, using the above definition, creative ideas can
range from minor adaptations or changes in how work is per-
formed to radical breakthroughs and completely new products
(Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Good examples of this can be
found in the arts. For instance, if one thinks of the work of Norman
Rockwell, no one would argue that it is not creative; however, his
work was predominantly in the same medium and followed themes
with different pictures representing different aspects of American
life (i.e., children, family, and patriotic themes). In contrast, the
work of Pablo Picasso ranges from the large black-and-white
mural war scene Guernica to portraits (i.e., Igor Stavisky or
Gertrud Stein) and large sculptures. With regard to organizational
creativity, however, the vast majority of empirical work has de-
fined and measured creativity as if it were a very homogeneous
and uniform concept.
Several theorists have noted that there is a conceptual misalign-
ment with creativity being measured in a homogeneous fashion. In
other words, how we measure and think about creativity needs to
be realigned to more accurately capture the range of what a
creative idea can encompass. Specifically, Sternberg (1999) has
stated that the “essence of creativity cannot be captured in a single
variable” (p. 84), and his work and that of Unsworth (2001) have
argued that different work processes and antecedents may promote
or hinder more radical ideas, whereas others may influence only
incremental improvements and adaptations.
In this work, we propose that it is both theoretically and prac-
tically important to differentiate between different forms of cre-
ativity, specifically radical and incremental creativity. To date,
other than theoretical work (Unsworth, 2001), research has not
investigated the potential differential effects of certain antecedents,
motives, and processes on these two distinct forms of creativity.
To this end, we examine different antecedents to each form,
arguing throughout that radical and incremental creativity may not
have the same drivers. In doing this, this article is laid out as
follows: First, we define radical and incremental creativity. We
then discuss the antecedents and stages in the work process ex-
pected to influence more radical versus more incremental creativ-
ity. Specifically, we focus our attention on intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation to use creativity in problem solving and the possible
kernel or source of creative ideas. Here, we differentiate between
ideas originating from theoretical readings and reflections and
those derived from first-hand practical observations and conver-
sations, and whether creativity was prevalent more in identifying
and defining the problem, or in coming up with the actual solution.
Taken together, we propose that the particular process, motivation,
and antecedents are essential determinants to the occurrence of
radical versus incremental creative outcomes.
Theoretical Overview
Radical and Incremental Creativity
Creativity has been defined as the production of novel and
useful ideas about products, services, or procedures (Amabile,
1996), and conceptual work has suggested that the originality
aspect is particularly important. Amabile (1996) and others (e.g.,
Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) also discuss creativity as a contin-
This article was published Online First October 11, 2010.
Lucy L. Gilson and Nora Madjar, Department of Management, School of
Business, University of Connecticut.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lucy L.
Gilson, University of Connecticut, School of Business, Department of
Management, 2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269-1041.
E-mail: lgilson@business.uconn.edu
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2010 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 21–28 1931-3896/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017863
21
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
