Over the course of recent developments in the societal and business environment, 

the concept of creativity has been brought into new arenas. The rise of ‘creative 

industries’ and the idea of creativity as a form of capital have attracted the interests 

of business and management professionals – as well as academics. As the notion 

of creativity has been adopted in the organization studies literature, the concept of 

organizational creativity has been introduced to refer to creativity that takes place 

in an organizational context. This doctoral thesis focuses on organizational 

creativity, and its purpose is to explore and problematize the hegemonic 

organizational creativity discourse and to provide alternative viewpoints for 

theorizing about creativity in organizations. Taking a discourse theory approach, 

this thesis, first, provides an outline of the currently predominant, i.e. hegemonic, 

discourse on organizational creativity, which is explored regarding themes, 

perspectives, methods and paradigms. Second, this thesis consists of five studies 

that act as illustrations of certain alternative viewpoints. Through these exemplary 

studies, this thesis sheds light on the limitations and taken-for-granted aspects of 

the hegemonic discourse and discusses what these alternative viewpoints could 

offer for the understanding of and theorizing for organizational creativity. 

This study leans on an assumption that the development of organizational 

creativity knowledge and the related discourse is not inevitable or progressive but 

rather contingent. The organizational creativity discourse has developed in a 

certain direction, meaning that some themes, perspectives, and methods, as well as 

assumptions, values, and objectives, have gained a hegemonic position over others, 

and are therefore often taken for granted and considered valid and relevant. The 

hegemonization of certain aspects, however, contributes to the marginalization of 

others. 

The thesis concludes that the hegemonic discourse on organizational creativity 

is based on an extensive coverage of certain themes and perspectives, such as those 

focusing on individual cognitive processes, motivation, or organizational climate 

and their relation to creativity, to name a few. The limited focus on some themes 

and the confinement to certain prevalent perspectives, however, results in the 

marginalization of other themes and perspectives. The negative, often unintended, 

consequences, implications, and side effects of creativity, the factors that might 

hinder or prevent creativity, and a deeper inquiry into the ontology and 

epistemology of creativity have attracted relatively marginal interest. The material 

embeddedness of organizational creativity, in other words, the physical 

organizational environment as well as the human body and its non-cognitive 

resources, has largely been overlooked in the hegemonic discourse, although thereare studies in this area that give reason to believe that they might prove relevant 

for the understanding of creativity. The hegemonic discourse is based on an 

individual-centered understanding of creativity which overattributes creativity to 

an individual and his/her cognitive capabilities, while simultaneously neglecting 

how, for instance, the physical environment, artifacts, social dynamics and 

interactions condition organizational creativity. 

Due to historical reasons, quantitative as well as qualitative yet functionally- 

oriented studies have predominated the organizational creativity discourse, 

although studies falling into the interpretationist paradigm have gradually become 

more popular. The two radical paradigms, as well as methodological and analytical 

approaches typical of radical research, can be considered to hold a marginal 

position in the field of organizational creativity. 

The hegemonic organizational creativity discourse has provided extensive 

findings related to many aspects of organizational creativity, although the con- 

ceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity in the hegemonic 

discourse are also in many respects limited and one-sided. The hegemonic 

discourse is based on an assumption that creativity is desirable, good, necessary, 

or even obligatory, and should be encouraged and nourished. The conceptualiza- 

tions of creativity favor the kind of creativity which is useful, valuable and can be 

harnessed for productivity. The current conceptualization is limited to the type of 

creativity that is acceptable and fits the managerial ideology, and washes out any 

risky, seemingly useless, or negative aspects of creativity. It also limits the possible 

meanings and representations that ‘creativity’ has in the respective discourse, 

excluding many meanings of creativity encountered in other discourses. The 

excessive focus on creativity that is good, positive, productive and fits the 

managerial agenda while ignoring other forms and aspects of creativity, however, 

contributes to the dilution of the notion. Practices aimed at encouraging the kind 

of creativity may actually entail a risk of fostering moderate alterations rather than 

more radical novelty, as well as management and organizational practices which 

limit creative endeavors, rather than increase their likelihood. 

The thesis concludes that although not often given the space and attention they 

deserve, there are alternative conceptualizations and understandings of 

organizational creativity which embrace a broader notion of creativity. The 

inability to accommodate the ‘other’ understandings and viewpoints within the 

organizational creativity discourse runs a risk of misrepresenting the complex and 

many-sided phenomenon of creativity in organizational context.