PERSONALITY FACTORS OF THE SUCCESSFUL INNOVATIVE
ACTIVITY
Yagolkovskiy Sergey,
National research university – Higher school of economics
Dear Colleagues, in my presentation I focus on personality factors which
determine to a considerable degree the effectiveness of the subject’s innovative
activity. The main goal of it was an evaluation of correlations among personal
innovativeness, parameters of individual creativity, average intelligence, and
propensity for the novelty experiencing. We also analyzed how participants
used others’ ideas in their creative activity.
The effectiveness of the innovative process is determined by the personal
characteristics of those individuals, who produce new ideas, as well as adopt
and modify them. We regard the creativity and personal innovativeness as the
most important factors in this context.
The process of ideas generation often takes place in the conditions of group
activity. The most popular form of group creativity was suggested by Osborn in
his brainstorming concept. Osborn claimed that brainstorming as a method of
group problem solving and ideas generation could considerably increase both
the quality and the quantity of ideas produced by group members. However,
numerous research findings have consistently shown that nominal groups,
consisting of a number of individuals who work alone, out-produce face-to-face
groups of the same size. The most common explanations of losses in group
brainstorming are evaluation apprehension, free riding, production blocking,
and matching. The inhibiting effect is small in dyads, but increases rapidly with
group size. But some authors pointed out that some forms of group idea
exchange should also lead to cognitive and social stimulation.
One of the most important aspects of creativity is the generation of new
ideas, which can be the basis for the innovation in organizations. To be
creative, new products must be useful in the organizational context. An ability
to adopt and apply new original novel ideas is closely related to innovativeness,
which is an important determinant of the development in various fields of
human activity. According to the theory of diffusion of innovations, there are 5
categories (differentiated by the innovativeness level) which all persons belong
to: a) innovators, (b) early adopters, (c) early majority, (d) late majority, and (e)
laggards. The second theory, which has made an important contribution to the
innovativeness research, is the Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory. Kirton has
developed a 32 item self-report scale named the Kirton Adaption–Innovation
Inventory. In according to the Inventory, every person can be located on a
continuum ranging from highly adaptive to highly innovative. Gauvin and Sinha
found in the scientific literature three definitions of the personal innovativeness:
(1) a characteristic of those who are the first to adopt a new technology; (2) a
force that increases the probability of being first to adopt a new technology; (3)
a force that enhances adoption of a new technology.
One of the most important points in the research on innovativeness is
exploration of particular ways of the new ideas adoption and their further
implementation.
We assume that the propensity for the novelty experiencing is closely
related with the personal innovativeness. Innovative activity is a process which
is determined by the individual’s desire to find novel ideas, as well as to
modify them.
In the scientific literature relationship between concepts “creativity” and
“innovativeness” is also discussed. Creativity is closely related with production
of new, original and potentially useful ideas. But these creative products could
be regarded only as the first step in future innovations. Novel ideas and
solutions become real innovations only after their adoption and subsequent
implementation.
Intelligence is also very important determinant of innovation. But we think
that the role of intelligence in the innovative performance is quite ambiguous.
On the one hand, it helps individual to think in more effective way. On the other
hand, intelligence could be regarded often as a barrier for the individual creative
activity.
The main goal of our study was an evaluation of correlations among main
personal factors which determine the effectiveness of the innovation. We also
analyzed how participants had used others’ ideas in their own creative activity.
The study consisted of two series.
Description of the study
The 1st series
In the 1st series we analyzed relations among parameters of creativity,
innovativeness, intelligence, and propensity for the novelty experiencing.
The sample consisted of 145 students (92 males and 53 females).
Parameters of creativity were assessed in psychometric paradigm. We used as a
measuring tool J.Guilford’s verbal test of creative thinking “unusual use” in I.S.
Averina and E.I.Shcheblanova’s russian adaptation. This test is represented in
the kind of two parallel and interchangeable forms. It requires participants to
generate ideas concerning unusual applications of the ordinary objects (in the
first parallel form it was a newspaper, in the second – a wooden rule
respectively). This test is the most popular and often used one. Its advantages
are: easiness in implementing and quickness of testing, which lowers a level of
weariness factor’s manifestation among subjects. In the subjects’ creativity
diagnostics, we analyzed the following parameters:
 productivity (a total number of ideas proposed by a subject);
 flexibility (a number of semantic categories subjects’ proposed ideas
relates to);
 originality (singularity and statistical rarity of subjects’ proposed ideas,
estimated by five-point scale - from 1 to 5 points).
For the assessment of participants’ innovativeness we used the Kirton
Adaption – Innovation Inventory (KAI). The average intelligence was assessed
by the Free Wonderlic Test. We measured the need for the novelty experiencing
by using the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale.
In the 1st series participants were given one form of the J.Guilford’s verbal test
of creative thinking “unusual use” only. They should think up during assigned
6 minutes a maximum number of all possible applications of standard
newspaper. Afterwards, they answered questions of the KAI and the Zuckerman
Sensation Seeking Scale. Finally, they performed the Free Wonderlic Test.
Results of the 1st series of our study showed that there is no significant
correlation between the most important personality factors of innovation:
innovativeness and creativity. We did not find significant relations between
innovativeness and average intelligence, too. On the contrary, correlation
between personal innovativeness and propensity for the novelty experiencing
was significantly positive (rs =.4, p<0.05). We also revealed that productivity
of participants’ creative performance has positive significant relations with their
intelligence (rs =.35, p<0.05) and flexibility (rs=.7, p<0.01).
The 2nd series
In the 2nd experimental series we analyzed correlations among creativity,
innovativeness, and quantity of others’ ideas use.
The sample consisted of 464 students: 157 males and 307 females. All
participants had not been informed of the purpose of the study.
For the assessment of individual creativity we used two parallel and
interchangeable forms of the mentioned J.Guilford’s verbal test of creative
thinking “unusual use” in I.S. Averina and E.I.Shcheblanova’s adaptation.
Objects were as follows: wooden rule and newspaper.
Participants’ innovativeness was assessed by the Kirton Adaption –
Innovation Inventory (KAI).
Diagnostics of the individual creativity and innovativeness was done in the
same way like in the 1st series. We also assessed how participants utilized
others’ ideas in the context of their own creative activity.
It was done in the context of the idea exposure paradigm. First, each
participant generated ideas concerning unusual applications of newspaper (stage
1). Before accomplishing the second part of diagnostics procedure, respondents
had been given stimulus material - typewritten list of 11 ideas regarding
uncommon application of wooden ruler. Afterwards, they were reading them
out for one minute. Finally, participants got instruction to think up, on one’s
own, a maximum number of wooden rule’s applications (stage 2). Each subject
could see the list with stimulus ideas till the end of the experiment. Moreover,
participants could use (and it was mentioned in the instruction) information,
obtained from the text with stimulus material, to their own discretion. We
counted the number of ideas produced by each participant, which belonged to
the following two categories:
 identical to stimulus ideas under the formulation (participants transferred
stimuli without any changes in their own “creative” products);
 identical to stimuli on sense (they re-formulated stimulus ideas or
modified them extracting main principles of unusual use of the given
object).
Duration of the ideas generation process concerning unusual uses of each
object was 6 min.
Correlation analyses were performed to determine the relationships among the
creativity parameters, quantity of others’ ideas use (by two different ways
separately), and personal innovativeness.
The results showed that quantity of others’ ideas modifications and participants’
innovativeness scores showed a positive relationship (rs =.27, p<0.05). We also
found positive correlation approximately the same size between different types
of others’ ideas use (rs =.28, p<0.05). But we could not find any significant
correlation between innovativeness and the quantity of stimulus ideas, which
individuals included in the list with their own creative products without any
changes. Experimental data also showed that there are no significant
relationships between particular creativity parameters and both innovativeness
and frequency of others’ ideas use.
Discussion
The main objective of our study was assessment of relations among
different personal characteristics of individuals in the context of their innovative
activity.
As it was mentioned above, we had not found significant correlations
between the most important determinants of innovations: creativity and
innovativeness. This fact contradicts the notion that creativity and personal
innovativeness closely related to each other. But it looks as a partial support for
the statement that creativity could be the first step in future innovations.
It was expected that creativity would have negative correlation with quantity
of others’ ideas use. We assumed that creative people tend to produce their own
novel ideas only refusing to use others’ creative products. But significant
correlation between the mentioned personal characteristics could not be found.
We explain these results by the following statement: individuals use various
strategies when they are processing the novel and creative content. Some of
them work with their own creative ideas only, refusing to take into
consideration others’ creative products. Other individuals tend to be attentive to
others’ ideas and intensively use them in their own creative activity. This
statement was partially supported by our next finding: obtained data revealed
significant correlation between different types of others’ ideas use. It can be
explained by the hidden propensity of some participants to apply stimuli to their
own creative process in various ways. But this result can be also regarded as a
basis for the differentiating between motivational and cognitive-behavioural
determination of the innovativeness. Motivational determinants of personal
innovativeness are activated when subject is acquiring new ideas and adopting
them. Cognitive factors determine mostly a process of making decisions about
particular ways of others’ ideas implementation and modification.
We did not find significant correlation between participants’ innovativeness
and the quantity of stimulus ideas, which they had included in the list with their
own creative products without any changes. So, results of the correlation
analysis did not support our prediction that participants’ personal
innovativeness correlates negatively with this type of others’ ideas use.
We did not find significant correlation between innovativeness and average
intelligence. This result looks as an argument which does not support the idea
about existence of the concept of “cognitive innovativeness”. On the contrary,
correlation between personal innovativeness and propensity for the novelty
experiencing was significantly positive (p<0.05). This finding confirms our
prediction that sensational sphere and motivation to experience new emotions
are closely related to the personal innovativeness.
Results of the presented study can be applied to enhancing the individual
creativity and innovativeness, as well as to various procedures and stages of the
innovation management.