IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v16y2007i1p19-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of affect in creative projects and exploratory search

Author

Listed:
  • Paul S. Adler
  • David Obstfeld

Abstract

The theory of creativity and exploratory search developed by Simon, March, and their followers in the Carnegie school relies on a coolly cognitive account of motivation. We argue that a more robust theory would give affect greater prominence. Our approach is inspired by Dewey's ( 2002 Human Nature and Conduct . Prometheus: Amherst, MA) analysis of the three components of human conduct—habit, intelligence, and impulse, where impulse is Dewey's term for affect. The Carnegie approach incorporates the first two, but has little to say about the third. We review literature on affect in psychology, psychodynamics, and neurobiology, showing how it allows us to characterize more effectively the motivational underpinnings of individual creativity and collective creative projects. This in turn enables us to sketch the key role of affect in exploratory search as compared to other domains of organizational activity. Copyright 2007 , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul S. Adler & David Obstfeld, 2007. "The role of affect in creative projects and exploratory search," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(1), pages 19-50, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:16:y:2007:i:1:p:19-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtl032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yasar, Burze & Sevilay Yılmaz, Işıl & Hatipoğlu, Nurullah & Salih, Aslıhan, 2022. "Stretching the success in reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 205-220.
    2. Nathalie Lazaric, 2012. "Evolution of Individual and Organizational Knowledge: Exploring Some Motivational Triggers Enabling Change," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 21, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Larsen, Bøje, 2020. "Whatever happened to “The Technology of Foolishness”? Does it have any potential today?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    4. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    5. Sylvain Lenfle, 2011. "The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect," Post-Print hal-00658346, HAL.
    6. Carol Linehan & Elaine O’Brien, 2017. "From Tell-Tale Signs to Irreconcilable Struggles: The Value of Emotion in Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas of Human Resource Professionals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(4), pages 763-777, April.
    7. Sylvain Lenfle, 2008. "Exploration and Project Management," Post-Print hal-00404168, HAL.
    8. Carlo Salvato & Roberto Vassolo, 2018. "The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1728-1752, June.
    9. Teppo Felin & Todd R. Zenger, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Strategy, Problems, and a Theory for the Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 222-231, February.
    10. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    11. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Identifying Viable “Need–Solution Pairs”: Problem Solving Without Problem Formulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 207-221, February.
    12. Danneels, Erwin & Vestal, Alex, 2020. "Normalizing vs. analyzing: Drawing the lessons from failure to enhance firm innovativeness," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    13. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Florence Charue-Duboc & Sylvain Lenfle & Christophe Midler, 2009. "Digging into exploration processes within established firms: Insights from two entities dedicated to enhancing radical innovation to support existing business," Post-Print halshs-00401148, HAL.
    14. Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), 2012. "Handbook of Knowledge and Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3101.
    15. Josh Whitford & Francesco Zirpoli, 2014. "Pragmatism, Practice, and the Boundaries of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1823-1839, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:16:y:2007:i:1:p:19-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.