Creativity and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in new drug development

Purpose - A dominating view in the literature of organizational creativity is to treat the creativity as anex postfactoconstruct rather than a process that may be subject to systematic and thoughtful managerial practices. Drawing on Alfred North Whitehead's writing, the paper seeks to examine how creativity is conceptualized in the pharmaceutical industry. Design/methodology/approach - This study is based on a series of interviews with managers and scientists in three pharmaceutical companies. Findings - Although researchers and managers designate the role of organizational creativity as the most important strategic capability of the firm, there is almost no communication about it. The respondents point out a gap between understanding and action in the innovation process, i.e. what precedes it in new drug development. This gap is clearly illustrated – creativity is what makes the difference for the companies – but hardly anyone talks about it. Practical implications - From a management perspective this paper concludes that organizational creativity in new drug development can become a more actionable concept by capturing images and narratives relevant to the organizational reality. Originality/value - In contrast to the dominated individualistic centered view of creativity, this paper argues that creativity does not occur at a single point in time but is rather the outcome from a series of interconnected events and undertakings. A process‐based view of creativity can thus escape the misplaced concreteness that the mythology of creativity postulates. Whitehead's process philosophy may form a fruitful foundation from which organizational creativity can be understood and exploited.