the relationship between human resource development and corporate creativity in japan

F E A T U R E

The Relationship Between Human Resource Development and Corporate Creativity in Japan Sam Stem

This article reports the results of a two-year study of the development and expression of creativity in Japanese companies and describes the relationship between human resource development (HRD) and corporate creativity. The distinction between individual and corporate creativity is discussed, and a definition of corporate creativity is proposed. The results of this study indicate that HRD policy, and in particular education and training, can influence corporate creativity through the promotion of information movement within the company and the selective acquisition of diverse stimuli. Implications for HRD policy and practice are described.

The development and expression of corporate creativity has been widely recognized as an essential ingredient in both corporate and economic development (Drucker, 1985; Ray and Meyers, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934). There has been, however, relatively little empirical research on the development and expression of creativity in companies. Most research on creativity has focused on the creativity of individuals, as though they were disconnected from others and from the environment in which they work.

The preponderance of research on creativity has been person centered. Guilfords ( 1950) presidential address to the American Psychologcal Associa- tion, widely recognized as a catalyst for research on creativity, identified the individual as the focus of creativity research. In his speech, Guilford defined creativity as follows: “In its narrow sense, creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people. Creative abilities determine whether the individual has the power to exhibit creative behavior to a noteworthy degree. Whether or not the individual who has the requisite abilities will

Note: The author is grateful to the Japan Management Association and Tokyo Institute of Technology for their sponsorship and support of the JMA Chair; to h g u k u Gijutsu Cho and Hutsumei Kyakai for their cooperation; and to Teisuo Iguchi, Hisaaki Komazaki, and faculty and students of Sakamoto and Muta Laboratories at Tokyo Institute of Technology, who provided assistance and advice.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY. mi. 3. no 3, Fall 1992 OJoscy-BW hbllshers 215

216 Stern

actually produce results of a creative nature will depend upon his motiva- tional and temperamental traits. To the psychologst, the problem is as broad as the qualities that contribute significantly to creative productivity. In other words, the psychologw’s problem is that of creative personality” (p. 444).

Although Guilford clearly stated that he was describing creativity in a narrow sense, his approach set the general tone for future research. In describing the research on creativity conducted from the time of Guilfords speech in 1950 through 1985, Stein (1987) said, “To date the outstanding feature of creativity research is that it has been devoted primarily to the description of the characteristics of persons regarded as creative” (p. 417).

The studies that have investigated creativity in companies have done so in Western, primarily US. and European, companies (Andrews, 1379; Ama- bile and Gryskiewicz, 1988; Bailyn, 1985; Kirton, 1987). Just as the expression of creativity is not limited by national boundaries, neither should the study of creativity be limited by country or culture. MacKinnon, observing that the main focus of creativity studies has been in the United States, has said that “if the fullest possible answer to this question is to be found, the study of creativity will have to become cross-cultural” (p. 128).

Japanese companies are especially worthy of study. Contrary to earlier perceptions, observers are increasingly recognizing the creative ability of Japanese companies (Drucker, 1985; Murakami and Nishiwaki, 199 1; Tat- suno, 1990; Torrance, 1980), as indicated, among other things, by the number of US. patents they receive and the frequency with which they are cited. In 1976 the top four recipients of U S . patents were General Electric, the US. Navy, Bayer, and Xerox; in 1990 the top four recipients were Hitachi, Toshiba, Canon, and Mitsubishi Electric, all Japanese companies. Further- more, a 1988 National Science Foundation study (cited in Tatsuno, 1990) found that since 1976 U.S. patents held by Japanese have been cited by researchers more often than patents held by Americans.

In recognition of the importance of the study of corporate creativity and the need for international colIaboration, the Japan Management Association (Jh4.A) endowed the Jh4A Creativity Development Chair at Tokyo Institute of Technology, with an open-ended mandate to study factors that contribute to the expression of corporate creativity. This article reports some of the results of the two-year Jh4A study and describes the relationship between human resource development (HRD) and the expression of corporate creativity.

What is corporate creativity and how does it differ from other types of creativity? The meaning and application of the term “creativity” have been found to be elusive by philosophers, psychologists, economists, and educa- tors alike (Barzun, 1989; Drucker, 1985; Hausman, 1984; Torrance, 1988; Van Gundy, 1987). Barzun (1989) believes that no other word in contempo- rary culture is put to more frequent and varied use. Torrance (19881, who has been involved in the measurement and study of creativity for more than forty years, claims that the term defies precise definition.

Human Resource Development and Corporate Creativity 217

One of the difficulties in arriving at a commonly accepted definition of creativity arises from the different approaches of researchers to the subject. Mooney (1963) identified four different approaches to the problem of creativity: person, process, product, and environment. Definitions of creativity and research orientations are largely determined by which of the four approaches is used as the point of entry. Guilford’s definition reflects his interest in determining the characteristics of creative people. Similarly, the definitions and research of others are shaped by their interests and starting points. Amabile (1983), who has investigated the interaction of individuals and their environments in the expression of creativity, uses the creative product as the basis of the following definition: “A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the task at hand, and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic” (p. 33).

Amabile’s definition calls attention to another difficulty in developing a commonly accepted definition of creativity-perspective. Amabile describes creative products as novel and valuable. These notions are typically associated with creativity; it is how newness and value are determined that forms the basis of disagreement. Should newness be judged from the perspective of an individual, the group or culture in which the result of creativity appears, or the world as a whole? Thurstone (1952) argued that an act is creative if it is new for the creator. According to that liberal interpretation, creative activity may occur even though the same result has already been achieved by others at an earlier time or in another place. Torrance also puts the creator at the center of the determination of creativity. Torrance’s (1988) “survival definition” of creativity, which he describes as his briefest and in some ways most satisfactory, is based on his 1951-1957 research in support of US. Air Force survival training: “When a person has no learned or practiced solution to a problem, some degree of creativity is required” (p. 57). In contrast, Stein (1953) insists that creativity must be defined in terms of the largest form of the culture in which it appears. Simply stated, Stein believes that the crite- rion of newness can be satisfied only if the result of the activity did not pre- viously exist.

The determination of what is valuable may be even more problematic than the determination of newness. In this regard, I am indebted to Torrance for helping me clarify one of the differences between individual and organizational creativity. Torrance pointed to a former student who had written that he had finally found the perfect job for the expression of creativity-a job as a night watchman, a job that provided maximum freedom with mini- mal requirements (E. €? Torrance, personal communication, November 29, 1989). Although an extreme example, this anecdote is helpful in calling attention to the importance of the reference point in the determination of value as it relates to creativity. The working definition used in this study refers to the company, rather than to the individual.

218 Stem

In recognition of the confusion associated with the definition and use of the term creativity in both English and Japanese, for the purpose of this study creativity was defined as that which takes place whenever a company successfully goes where it has not gone before. In this definition, the variables of newness and success serve as creative criteria. A corporate activity can be described as highly successful and not very new, highly new and not very successful, neither new nor successful, or both new and successful. Those activities that combine high levels of both newness and success are truly creative. Corporate activities that are highly successful and not new may be considered efficient, but not very creative. Correspondingly, corporate activities that are highly new and not successful may be considered novel or unusual, but not creative. This definition presumes that the expression of corporate creativity requires exploratory activity in areas that are not closely related to current corporate activity. Since such exploration typically occurs in the R&D sections of companies, this study investigated examples of creative corporate RQD.

In a critical review of research on organizational creativity, Van Gundy (1987) described the literature identifylng itself with organizational creativity (other than studies of creative personality traits and characteristics) as largely nonempirical and concerned mostly with prescriptions for needed climate variables. In describing various research approaches to the study of organizational creativity, Lewin (1988) claimed that “the lack of comprehensive theo- retical frameworks on creativity and innovation in organizations would suggest that, given the current state of knowledge, hypotheses testing will not prove fruitful” (p. 137).

The JMA study of corporate creativity differed from previous research in the following respects: (1) it was conducted in non-Western (Japanese) companies; ( 2 ) it included both interviews and surveys; (3) it included a comparison group of typical RQD projects; and (4) it investigated the relationship between HRD functions and the expression of creativity

Research Methodology Research Groups. Recognizing the need for broad-based exploratory

research, the JMA study conducted both interviews and surveys in three groups of personnel associated with R&D projects. Group 1 was composed of winners of the Kugaku Gijutsu KOrOshd award from Kagaku Gijutsu Cho (Ministry of Science and Technology) and national awards from Hatsumei Kyakai (Institute of Invention of Innovation) between 1986 and 1990. Group 2 and Group 3 were randomly selected companies that did not receive either award between 1986 and 1990. In Group 2 , R&D projects were selected by R&D managers as being representative of a creative project. In Group 3, R&D projects were selected by R&D managers as being representative of a typical project. R&D managers in both Group 2 and Group 3 used the JMA


study’s working definition of corporate creativity as the basis for selecting creative and typical projects. It should be noted that Group 3, identified as typical projects, were RdTD projects that resulted in successful business activity but were not judged creative. Table 1 shows the sample method and number of projects for each group.

Group 1, the recipients of awards from Kuguku Gijutsu Cho and Hufiumei Kyakai between 1986 and 1990, represented a sample of highly creative cor- porare activity Each year these two organizations present awards to individuals who have made significant and creative contributions to science and technoIoa, The recipients of these awards are primarily R&D personnel of Japanese companies. Awards received by individuals who work in a noncompany setting were not included in the sample.

In the case of both Kugaku Gijutsu Cho and Hutsumei Kydkai, the awards were granted to one or more individuals in recognition of their work on a specific project. After eliminating awards received by individuals working in a noncompany setting, such as universities or public research institutes, a total of 192 projects that received awards from Kugaku Gijutsu Cho and Hat- sumei Kybkai from 1986 to 1990 were identified. These projects represent 148 companies and more than 400 researchers. In many cases more than one researcher received an award for the same project; in some cases one company received more than one award between 1986 and 1990; and in one case a single project received an award from both organizations.

Interview Sample. In the first stage of the JMA study, interviews were conducted with personnel associated with 22 of the 192 Group 1 projects. A major R&D effort, such as those in the interview sample, is complex. In an attempt to investigate the effect of the researchers, the management environment, and the HRD environment, three separate interviews were conducted in each company Interviews of about two hours each were conducted with members of the R&D team that received the award, a top-level RQD manager, and HRD manager. The interview sample was selected to reflect the diversity of the total group. About half of the interview sample received awards from Kagaku Gyutsu Cho and about half from Hatsumei Kyakai. Some

Table 1. Group Composition Number of Projects

Group Sampling Method and Respondents

1

2 Identified by R&D top management as creative projecrs 76

Kagaku Gijutsu Cho & Hatsumei Kydkai award- winning projects 120

3 Identified by R&D top management as typical projects 97

Notc: Total number of projects and respondens = 293. The response rate for Group 1 was 62.5 percent; Group 2. 15.2 percent; Group 3, 19.4 percent.

220 Stem

were the R&D efforts of very large companies such as Matsushita and Mazda. Others were the R&D efforts of smaller companies such as Seiki Cor- poration, a 300-person company in Yonezawa that manufactures machines for runnerless injection molding. Some of the award-winning R&D projects in the interview sample are well known, such as the development of the world’s first completely autofocus camera by Minolta or the method for computer entry of kanji characters (Chinese characters that are used in both the Japanese and the Chinese languages) developed by Fujitsu. Others are less well known but equally important, such as the process developed by Mit- subishi Electric for data compression in facsimile machines, which permits the rapid transmission of data by facsimile transmission. Excerpts from the interviews are included in the discussion section of this article.

Survey Sample. Following the interviews, surveys were sent to researchers who worked on Group 1, 2, and 3 projects. As noted in Table 1, the response rates varied by group. In Group 1, a sample was drawn from 192 award-winning projects, and 120 (62.5 percent) responded. In Groups 2 and 3, 500 projects were sampled for each group; Group 2 had 76 (15.2 percent) respondents and Group 3 had 97 (19.4 percent). Although the response rates for Group 2 and Group 3 are relatively low, it should be noted that both groups were randomly selected from the @jb Kigyb listing of Japan- ese companies whose stock is openly traded.

In comparing the results by group, it is important to note that Group 1 contained significantly more large companies than either Group 2 or Group 3. As shown in Figure 1, approximately 60 percent of Group 1 researchers work for companies with 5,000 or more employees, as compared with 18 percent of Group 2 researchers and 10 percent of Group 3 researchers. Although Group 2 contains more large companies than Group 3, the difference is not significant. To help distinguish between differences by group and differences by size, data comparing both group and size difference are described in this article.

Interpretation of Data The tables in this article compare either numeric data, such as the average age of researchers as shown in Table 2, or categoric data, such as the percentage of researchers who have bachelors degrees as shown in Table 3. In the case of numeric data, tests for significance were conducted using ANOVA, followed by t tests. In the case of categoric data, tests for significance were conducted using chi-square tests. If there is a statis- tically significant difference by group or by company size, the row containing the significant difference is in italics. A significant difference by either group or company size is indicated by a single asterisk when the probability is less than .05 and by two asterisks when the probability is less than .01. The location of the asterisks identifies the pair that contains the significant difference. For example, Table 2 shows the average age of the researchers. Two asterisks following the current average of Group 1 researchers indicate that the current average age of Group 1 researchers is significantly higher than Group 2

Human Resource Development and Corporate Creativity 22 1

Figure 1. Company Size by Group

U

orwp 2

researchers. No asterisk following the current average age of Group 2 researchers indicates that there is no significant difference in the current average age of Group 2 and Group 3 researchers. Two asterisks following the current average age of Group 3 researchers indicate that the age of Group 3 researchers is significantly less than Group 1 researchers. In all cases the number of respondents is equal to the number of projects: Group 1, 120; Group 2, 76; and Group 3, 97. The number of responding researchers who worked for large companies (more than 5,000 employees) was 95; medium companies (between 1,000 and 4,999 employees), 115; and small companies (fewer than 1,000 employees), 83. None of the respondents worked on more than one project.

Characteristics of Respondents The characteristics of responding researchers are relatively homogeneous. They are all male and have had similar career experiences. The following summarizes their age, educational, and RQD background.

Age. Table 2 shows the average age of the researchers when they completed the survey (current age) and in relation to other R&D activities. At the time of the survey, the average age of the researchers in the total sample was 47.4. The researchers entered their companies at the average age of 24.6; approximately two years later, at the average age of 26.6, they entered the

222 Stem

Table 2. Researcher Age (Average)

Entered company 25.1 23.9 24.4 24.8 24.2 24.9 24.6 Entered R&D 26.4 26.2 27.0 26.1 26.3 27.4 26.6 Became team leader 33.7 33.5 34.4 34.2 33.6 33.9 33.9 Current age 50.9'' 44.2 45.6" 47.8 47.5 46.8 47.4

~ ~~~ ~

Table 3. Educational Level of Researchers: N (Oh)

Educational Group Size Level: 1 2 3 L M 5 All

Sub-bachelor's 14 (11.7) 3 (4.0) 5 (5.2) 7 (7.4) 7 (6.1) 8 (9.6) 22 (7.5) Bachelor 62 (51.7) 53 (69.7) 69 (71.7)" 43 (45.3) 76 (66.1) 65 (78.3)" 184 (62.8) Post-bachelor's 44 (36.7) 20 (26.3) 23 (23.7) 45 (47.4) 32 (27.8) 10 (12.1)" 87 (29.7) Total number 120 (100) 76 (100) 97 (100) 95 (100) 115 (100) 83 (100) 293 (100)

R&D section; at the average age of 33.9, almost ten years after entering their company, they became team leaders. Most of the researchers began working on the specified project while they were in their early thirties, shortly after becoming team leaders. As shown in Table 2, the only significant difference in age, by group or by company size, is the age of Group 1 researchers at the time of the survey. At the time of the survey, Group 1 researchers were an average of 50.9 years old, approximately five years older than Group 2 and Group 3 researchers.

Education. The survey included questions about educational level and educational study leaves. As shown in Table 3, 62.8 percent of all researchers hold four-year degrees; 29.7 percent, graduate degrees; and 7.5 percent, less than a four-year degree. A significantly greater percentage of Group 3 researchers (71.1 percent) have four-year degrees than Group 1 researchers (51.7 percent). The difference may be attributed to the larger number of Group 1 researchers with graduate degrees (36.7 percent) and somewhat larger number with less than a four-year degree (11.7 percent). Although Group 1 has a higher percentage of researchers with graduate degrees, the difference is not significant. By size, small companies had a significantly higher percentage of researchers with four-year degrees and lower percentage of researchers with more than a four-year degree.

Researchers were also asked whether they had participated in a study leave of one year or more, in or outside Japan. The use of study leaves is a well established part of HRD in Japanese companies. Each year Japanese companies select key personnel between the ages of about twenty-five and thirty-five who are sent as visiting scholars, ryiiggakusei, to universities or research institutes for periods of professional development that may last


from several months to several years. Their research activity is primarily related to an important need of the company but is also related to the development of the individual. It does not typically result in a graduate degree, but instead is closely focused on a specific research topic. Through the support of these individuals and their projects, Japanese companies are able to gather important information, build relations, and contribute to the professional development of key personnel.

As shown in Table 4, approximately 20 percent of the researchers in each group experienced a study leave of one year or more. Although the percentage of researchers with a study leave of one year or more is similar regardless of group or company size, the percentage of small-company researchers who had an inside-Japan study leave (20.5 percent) is significantly greater than that of large-company researchers (8.4 percent). Corre- spondingly, the percentage of small-company researchers who have had an outside-Japan study leave (2.4 percent) is significantly less than that of large- company researchers (9.5 percent). The greater number of large-company researchers who have had an outside-Japan study leave is probably related to the greater level of international involvement and greater resources of large companies.

An analysis of the frequency of study leaves by the source of the project proposal revealed a significant difference between project initiators and project followers. Since the JMA study is project specific, it is possible to iden- tify researchers who were the initial source of research proposals (project initiators) and those who served as team leaders for projects that were first proposed by management (project followers). As shown in Figure 2, significantly more Group 1 projects were first proposed by individual researchers (43.5 percent) than Group 3 projects (24.0 percent). Correspondingly, significantly more Group 3 projects were first proposed by top management (60.4 percent) than Group 1 projects (40.9 percent). Although bottom-up projects were somewhat more prevalent in large companies (39.1 percent) than in small companies (31.3 percent), the difference is not significant.

Significantly more project initiators (26.0 percent) had a study leave of one year or more, either inside or outside Japan, in comparison with project followers (13.7 percent). The greater level of study leave participation by project initiators may be an indication that researchers who are more likely to initiate projects are also more likely to initiate or favorably respond or react to opportunities for study leaves.

R&D Output. Measurable output of R&D personnel includes participation in RQD projects, awards, published papers, and patents. As summarized in Table 5 , researchers in the total sample participated in an average of 7.5 projects, received an average of 25.0 patents, published an average of 2.2 refereed papers in the past five years, and received an average of 3.7 inside- company awards and 1.5 outside-company awards. As shown in Table 5 , Group 1 researchers were significantly more prolific than Group 3 researchers

Tabl

e 4.

Stud

y Le

ave

Exp

erie

nce:

N (O

h)

Gro

w

Size

So

urce

St

udy

Leav

e: 1

2 3

L M

S Bo

ttom

' To

pb

All

Insid

e Jap

an

14 (1

1.7)

14

(18.

4)

16 (1

6.5)

8

(8.4

) 19

(16.

5)

17 (2

O.5

)*

21 (2

1.9)

* 15

(10.

3)

44 (1

5.0)

O

utsi

de Ja

pan

10 (8

.3)

2 (2

.6)

2 (2

.1)

9 (9

.5)

3 (2

.6)

2 (2

.4)*

4 (4

.2)

5(3.

4)

14

(4

.8)

Tota

l 24

(20.

0)

16 (2

1.1)

18

(18.

6)

17 (2

0.0)

22

(19.

1)

19 (2

2.9)

25

(26

.0)*

20

(13.

7)

58

(19

.8)

'Bot

tom

=

Res

earc

h pr

opos

al in

itial

ly m

ade

by in

divi

dual

res

earc

her,

N =

96.

bT

op =

Res

earc

h pr

opos

al in

itial

ly m

ade

by m

anag

erne

m, N =

146

.

in each category. Group 1 researchers were also more prolific than Group 2 researchers in each category with the exception of academic papers. Although there are also significant differences by company size, differences by group are greater than those by company size.

As described earlier, there are no significant differences in age, educational background, or company size between Group 2 and Group 3 researchers. However, there is a significant difference in their R&D output. As shown in Table 5, Group 2 researchers published significantly more academic articles (2.1) than Group 3 researchers (1.0). Another significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 researchers is the average number of R&D projects. Since there is no significant difference in the age at which they entered the RQD sections of their companies and the age at which they completed the survey, it may be assumed that there is no significant difference in the length of their careers. However, even though the length of their careers is similar, Group 2 researchers participated in significantly less RdrD projects (5.7) than did Group 3 researchers (7.9). The significantly larger number of Group 1 researcher RQD projects (8.4) may be attributed to their greater age at the time of the survey and corresponding longer career in R&D.

Human Resource Development and Corporate Creativity -

226 Stem

Table 5. RQD Output (Average Number) RGD G r o w Size Output 1 2 3 L M S All

Patents 37.0" 19.4 15.0" 35.3 23.3 15.3' 25.0

Awards inside 6.3" 2.4 1.6;' 6.1** 3.0 1.9" 3.7 Awards outside 3.0;; 0.6 0.4** 2.4** 1.2 0.9*' 1.5

Papers' 3.3 2.1; 1.0;; 3.0 2.1 1.6 2.2

Projects 8.4; 5.7+ 7.9 6.4 8.0 8.2 7.5

'Refereed papers published during the past five years.

The greater number of published papers and lower number of career R&D projects of Group 2 researchers may be associated with their involvement in creative projects. If the published papers are related to the specified project, the larger number may be evidence of the creativity of the project and recognition through peer review. The lower number of career RQD projects leads to the assumption that Group 2 projects, which are assumed to be representative of creative projects, require a longer time period than Group 3 projects, which are assumed to be representative of typical projects.

Human Resource Development and Corporate Creativity In addition to background information about the researchers, the researchers also rated the importance of information sources and education and training functions to the expression of creativity in the specified project.

Znformation Sources. We live and work in what is often referred to as the "information age." R&D personnel who are involved in the acquisition, processing, and dissemination of information are particularly affected by the growing body of information. To determine the nature of the relationship between sources of information and the expression of creativity, R&D personnel were asked to rate the importance of information sources in relation to the expression of creativity in specified projects. As in other parts of the survey, a five-point scale (1 = not important, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, and 5 = very important) was used. Table 6 lists the information sources in order of their average ratings by all researchers. It is important to note that the respondents based their ratings on an actual project.

The relatively low rating of computer data bases as an information source is of interest. Regardless of group or company size, computer data bases were rated as the least important of all eighteen information sources. The low rating of computer data bases may be related to the period in which the projects were conducted. Most of the projects were conducted between 1975 and 1985, when computer data bases were not commonly used.

Education and Training Functions. Since education and training offer the opportunity for the acquisition of information and stimulus, participa-


Table 6. Information Sources (Average Rating) Information Grow Size Source I 2 3 L M S A11

Team member User information Booksfjournals

(academic) Outside-team R&D personnel

Ocher company

Patent (Japan) Manu factunng

Other company

Patent (foreign) Unwersiry/re-

search institute Top management BooWmagannes

(popular) Sales divlsion Conference

Uapan) Conference (foreign)

Other company dimion

Earlier company research

Computer database

Average

products

divtsion

R&D

4.17 3.58

3.45

3.52

3.23' 3.25

3.31

3.05 2.99

2.91 2.90

2.77 2.77

2.82

2.99

2.81

2.61

2.05" 3.03

4.14 3.71

3.58

3.53

3.67 3.57

3.32

3.53 3.13

3.15 3.15

3.12 2.99

3.15

2.80

2.84

2.77

2.60 3.20

4.09 3.66

3.44

3.55

3.46 3.39

3.26

3.55' 2.95

3.15 3.13

3.26** 3.11

2.91

2.79

2.86

2.76

2.24 3.20

4.25 3.39'

3.45

3.68

3.13 3.42

3.40

3.08 3.27

2.97 2.88

2.69' 2.74

3.00

3.05

2.98

2.69

2.21 3.07

4.09 3.77

3.43

3.57

3.47 3.35

3.31

3.20 3.04

3.08 3.12

3.14 2.99

2.83

2.83

2.64

2.61

2.24 3.11

4.07 3.759

3.58

3.29'

3.70' * 3.38

3.16

3.57' 2.99

3.11 3.11

3.28" 3.10

3.00

2.73'

2.94

2.84

2.31 3.20

4.14 3.64

3.53

3.48

3.42 3.38

3.30

3.26 3.10

3.05 3.04

3.03 2.94

2.93

2.88

2.84

2.70

2.24 3.12

tion in such programs may be related to the development and expression of corporate creativity. To determine the importance of education and training functions regularly conducted by Japanese companies, researchers were asked to rate the importance of selected education and training activities to the expression of creativity in the specified project. As shown in Table 7, self-development, on-the-job training (OJT), and attending conferences were the highest-rated education and training functions regardless of group or company size. There are significant differences by group and by company size in the ratings of conference participation, creativity training, off-the-job training (OffJT), and study leaves.

Attendance and presentation at conferences were rated significantly higher by large-company researchers than by medium- or small-company researchers.

228 Stem

Higher ratings by large-company researchers may be related to their greater level of participation in conferences. Although there is no significant difference in size between Group 2 and Group 3 companies, Group 2 researchers rated attendance (3.73) and presentation (3.61) at conferences significantly higher than did Group 3 researchers (3.32 and 3.19, respectively).

As described earlier, there appears to be a relationship between study leaves and creative R&D project proposals. But, as shown in Table 7, study leaves in both Japanese and non-Japanese universities were rated relatively unimportant to the expression of creativity by all researchers. As shown in Table 8, however, the ratings of researchers who have experienced a study leave of one year or more in or outside Japan are significantly higher than those who have not. Researchers who actually participated in a study leave consider study in a Japanese or foreign university one of the most important sources of information. Not surprisingly those who did not have a study leave at any university consider university study one of the least important sources of information in relation to the specified project. The significantly higher ratings of Group 2 researchers (3.22, 3.05), in comparison with Group 3 (2.73, 2.491, are of particular interest. Since there is no significant difference in company size, it is likely that the difference in ratings reflects the view that university study, either Japanese or foreign, is more important for creative projects than for typical projects.

Although the ratings for creativity training are relatively low, they should not be interpreted as evidence that creativity training is ineffective in pro- moting creativity. Relatively few responding researchers actually received for- mal creativity training; it is therefore not surprising that their ratings of the importance of such rraining to the specified project were low.

Discussion

Information Flow. Corporate activity requires interaction between individuals who work together toward a common goal. The exchange of information between these personnel is important to the expression of corporate creativity. As described earlier, a team member was rated the most important source of information by all researchers. Since there is no significant difference by either group or size, the ratings imply that a team member is a valuable source of information for both creative and typical projects. In contrast, university and research institute personnel were rated as relatively unimportant to either creative or typical projects. These results do not necessarily mean that team members are important sources of information and university or research personnel are not. Information is highly fluid and can be accessed in different states and from many different sources. In comparison with information received from a team member, information from university or research institute personnel is relatively “raw.” Raw information is less application specific and far more general than “processed” information.


Table 7. Education and Training Functions (Average Rating) Education and Training Group Si te Functions 1 2 3 t M 5 All

Self-development OJT Attending

conference Presenting paper

at a conference Creativity traming Outside-company

Inade-corn pan y

Study in Japanese

Study in foreign

New employee

Average

OffJT

OffJT

university

university

training

4 34 3 90

3.66

3.60 2.84+

2.75'

2.79

2.68"

2.65'

2.53 3.13

4.50 3.87

3.73'

3.61 3.19

3.08

3.05

3.22"

3.05';

2.60 3.34

~ _ _ ~ 4 30 4 42 4 35 4 32 4 37 4 00 4 05 3 90 3 80 3 93

332' 380' 3 4 8 3 41 3 57

3.19' 3.79' 3.40 3.15 3.47 3.14' 2.76' 3.09 3.27" 3.02

3.08. 2.80 3.08 2.93 2.95

2.96 2.87 2.91 2.99 2.92

2.73 2.83 2.80 2.89 2.84

2.49 2.03 2.63 2.54 2.68

2.04 2.50 2.59 2.82 2.65 3.19 3.24 3.18 3.17 3.20

~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

Table 8. Study Leave Rating (With and Without Experience)

s l u d w Study Leave Location Yes No All

Inside Japan 3.67'* 2.68 2.84 Outside Japan 3.54'* 2.65 2.68

Information that is exchanged between team members may have originated from a relatively raw source such as university or research institute personnel, but important value is added in the process of being transmitted by a team member who has specific knowledge of the intended application. S ~ c h information, characterized as "value-added information" in the JMA study, is important to both creative and typical projects.

Rated as the second highest education and training function, OJT provides the opportunity and means for researchers to share information with one another. It has been widely recognized as the heart of Japanese within- company education and training (Dore and Caimcross, 1990; Levine and Kawada, 1980; Stem, 1991). By definition, OJT involves instruction on a one-to-one basis, at the workplace, while employees are involved in work. Through OJT, workers of all ages and all types are expected to share their skills with others and leam from others. Workers who leam together, from each other, and within the company develop common atrirudes and under- standings that form the basis of what is called corporate culture. For the

230 Stem

development of creativity, OJT contains characteristics of both common and diverse stimuli. Although OJT is a medium for the sharing of experiences among workers, it also provides the opportunity for learning that varies according to the needs of the work.

The contribution of OJT t5 corporate creativity can be seen in the development of the first eight-millimeter single-unit video camcorder by Hitachi in the mid-1980s. Hitachi had a long history of research and development in the use of metal oxide semiconductor technology for image sensing. Through the effective use of OJT they were able to share their accumulated knowledge and experience with researchers and engmeers from the Central Research Laboratory, Consumer Products Research Laboratory, and the Tokai factory Their use of OJT and cooperation between business units enabled them to share information between groups and across generations within the company.

Creative Stimulus. Stimulus can be distinguished from information by the result. The reception of information does not necessarily result in sub- stantial action. In contrast, stimulus results in a response. Although the movement of information is important for both creative and typical projects, stimulus is especially important for creativity. Serving as a catalyst for change, stimulus can provide the key that unlocks creative potential.

In a corporate setting there are many different types of stimuli. In this discussion, the provision of stimulus through education and training will be discussed. Depending on the number of participants that receive the same content, education and training can provide stimuli that range from corn- mon to diverse. For example, both initial training, shinjin kenshu, and stan- dard off-the-job training, kaisb betsu kenshu, provide common stimuli. In such training, the content is well defined and a large percentage of company employees receive the same training. In contrast, self-development, OJT, study leaves, and participation in professional conferences provide the opportunity for diverse stimuli in which both the content and membership are situation specific.

As described earlier, education and training functions that were rated most important to creativity were those that provide diverse stimuli. Self- development, OJT, and participation in conferences were the highest-rated education and training functions. Furthermore, if we consider the ratings of researchers who have had a study leave of one year or more separately from those who did not, the rating of study leaves is also high.

In recent years, self-development has been increasingly recognized as an important aspect of human resource development (Manz and Manz, 1991). Self-development is expected of all Japanese employees but is recognized as especially important for personnel working in new areas, such as R&D. An example of the importance of self-development in the expression of corporate creativity can be seen in the development of the OASYS system for computer keyboard entry of kanji by Yasunori Kanda, a researcher at Fujitsu.


Kanda pursued the challenge of developing a new keyboard because of the need for including comments in software. In the mid-1970s he noticed that U.S. computer programmers included extensive comments in their software code, but Japanese programmers put in relatively few. Such comments are very helpful in debugging and updating. He suspected that Japanese programmers were reluctant to write comments in English and that if they could enter them in Japanese using kanji characters, they would be more likely to do so. In 1977 he began an unofficial, under-the-table project that resulted in the now well-known OASYS system. Although Kanda’s background was in electrical engineering and hardware design, his self-study included the history of printing and software interface design. Kanda’s initiative and self- development resulted in the OASYS project’s gaining official status and required investment of resources.

An example of how study leaves can contribute to corporate creativity can be seen in the development of the worlds first quartz watch by Seiko Epson in 1969. In 1960, Susumu Aisawa, a twenty-eight-year-old engineer with a background in precision mechanics, was sent to Tokyo University to study electronics for one year. After his return, Aisawa’s combined background in mechanics, electronics, and specific knowledge of watch design and manufacturing enabled him to make a significant contribution to the .development of a quartz watch and the emerging area of mechatronics. Aisawa is now a managng director of Seiko Epson. This example of a successful study leave contributed to the development of the quartz watch, the area of mechatronics that led to the development of the dot matrix printer, and the development of a key person.

Implications for Human Resource Development Policy Previous research on creativity has focused on individual creativity. That focus has led to the assumption that creativity in companies depends primarily on individual creative ability and is therefore unmanageable (Mura- kami and Nishiwaki, 1991). Reflecting that emphasis on the individual, many creativity training programs emphasize the acquisition of skills associated with the expression of individual creativity. The results of this study imply that corporate creativity can be influenced through HRD policies that promote within-company information flow and the selective acquisition of diverse stimuli. The distinction between individual and corporate creativity is important. Although it is evident that the development and expression of creativity is complex, involving many individual, group, and organizational variables, the effect of HRD policy on creativity has not been sufficiently considered.

Corporate HRD policy can promote or inhibit the flow of information within the company and the acquisition of diverse stimuli. The provision of education and training within the company through both OJT and OffJT

232 Stern

establishes paths for information flow that can be used for the sharing of information between people and across generations. Rather than building such paths only after the need becomes apparent, such a policy assures an established infrastructure that encourages the flow of within-company information (Stern, 1991). When it works well, as in the Hitachi example, the infrastructure supports the generation of value-added information and col- laborative activity. When it works poorly, it can lead to a company that per- sists in looking inward and limits access to new and important information. The balance is delicate, requiring careful monitoring and adjustment of HRD policy and practice.

Although the findings of this study suggest that there is an association between HRD policy and the expression of corporate creativity, the implications for Japanese and US. companies may differ in accordance with their respective HRD policies. The degree to which education and training are provided within the company has been identified as a fundamental difference between Japanese and U.S. companies (Dore and Caincross, 1990; Hashimoto, 1990; Stem, 1988; Stern and Muta, 1990). In general, Japanese companies are much more likely to provide within-company education and training, whereas US. companies are more likely to sponsor education and training that is provided outside the company. The initial training provided to new employees of Japanese companies provides a good example. It is common practice for major Japanese companies to require all new employees to receive a full year or more of initial training before beginning work in a professional capacity. As part of that initial training, many of the award-winning researchers in the JMA study performed routine factory work, worked as sales clerks, and received training that has little direct relation to their work in R&D. As described earlier, such training provides common stimulus: the content is relatively consistent over time and is the same for a large number of employees. It is important to note that an important goal is something other than the training itself (Stern, 1991). Although such training was rated as relatively unimportant to the expression of creativity by all respondents in the JMA study, it is the vehicle through which important relationships are formed that, in turn, facilitate the movement of information within the company.

The expression of corporate creativity by Japanese companies requires HRD policies that balance the acquisition of common and diverse stimuli. Consider the example of Aisawa, the Seiko Epson engneer who was sent to Tokyo University to study electronics, or Kanda, the Fujitsu engineer who engaged in extensive and productive self-study. In both these examples, new and important stimuli were added to a base of common stimuli. It is through such a balance that corporate creativity can be achieved.

A major implication of this study is that HRD policy, and in particular information flow and selective acquisition of diverse stimuli, can influence corporate creativity An understanding of how to alter existing HRD policy

Human Resource Develoement and Coruorate Creativitv 233

depends on an analysis of current policy and its effect on these two areas. For many Japanese companies that want to increase creative ability, the challenge is to increase access to diverse stimuli without losing the benefits that come from having a large number of employees who receive common stimuli. Indeed, the results of interviews with HRD managers in Japanese companies reveal that, during the past decade, many Japanese companies have been doing just that. For many US. companies, the challenge may be to increase common stimulus and information flow by providing education and training within the company, without losing access to diverse stimuli from outside the company. In both cases, HRD policy can play an important role in helping companies develop and express creativity.

Note

1. This article describes the results of the JMA study as they relate to the themes of information flow and stimulus, two of the five major themes that were found to be associated with the expression of corporate creativity. The other three themes are target setting, encouragement, and attitude. For a more complete presentation of the study results, refer to Stem, Iguchi, and Komazaki (1992).

References Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. 5. (1988). Creative human resources in the R&D laboratory:

How environment and personality affect innovation. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), HandboohJor creative and innovative managers (pp. 501-523). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Andrews, F: M. (1979). Scientific productivity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bailyn, L. (1985). Autonomy in the industrial R&D laboratory. Human Resource Management,

Barzun. J. (1989, Summer). The paradoxes of creativity. The American Scholar, 58, 337-351. Dore, R., & Cairncross, D. (1990). Employee training inJapan. Washington, DC: Office of Tech-

Drucker, P F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practices and principles. New York:

Guilford, J. E (1950). Creativity. American Psychologst, 5, 444-454. Hashimoto. M. (1990). The Japanese labor market in a comparative perspective with the United

States. Kalamazoo, MI: W E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Hausman. C. R. (1984). A discourse on novelty and creation. Albany: State University of New

York Press. Kirton, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive s@e and personality. In S. G. lsaksen

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 282-304). Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Levine, S. B., & Kawada, H. (1980). Human resources in Japanese industrial development. Prince-

ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lewin, A. Y. (1988). Research on creative and innovative management: An evaluation of

research strategies. In Y. Ijiri & R. L. Kuhn (Eds.), New directions in creative and innovative management: Bridgng theory and practice (pp. 13 1-143). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

MacKinnon, D. W (1987). Some critical issues for future research in creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers ofcreativity research (pp. 120-130). Buffalo, NY: Beady.

24(2), 129-146.

nology Assessment.

HarperCollins.

234 Stem

Manz, C. C., & Manz, K. F! (1991). Strategles for facilitating self-directed learning: A process for enhancing human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2( 1).

Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W Taylor & E Barron (Eds.), Scient$c creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 331-340). New York: Wiley.

Murakami, T., & Nishiwaki, T. (1991). Strategy for creation. Cambridge. England: Woodhead. Ray, M., 6-r Myers, R. (1986). Creativity in business. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-

Stein, M. 1. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal ojPsychology, 36, 31 1-322. Stein, M. 1. (1987). Creativity research at the crossroads: A 1985 perspective. In 5. G. lsaksen

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 417-4271, Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Stern, 5. (1988). Human resource development and training in Japun. Tokyo: Japan Management

Association. Stern, 5. (1991). Training and development in Japan: The basis for relationships. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 242). 115-120. Stern, S., Iguchi, T., & Komazaki, H. (1992, January). The development and expression ojcorpo-

rate creativity: The jMA creativity Devefopment Chair final report (Educational Science and Technology Research Report 92-1). Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of Technology, Educational Sci- ence and Technology Research Group.

Stem, S., & Muta. H. (1990). The Japanese difference. Training and Development Journal, 44(3), 74-82.

Tatsuno, S. M. (1990). Created in Japan: From imilators to world-class innovators. New York: HarperCollins.

Thurstone. L. L. (1952). Creative talent. In L. L. Thurstone (Ed.). Applications o j psychology (pp. 18-37). New York: HarperCollins.

Torrance, E. E (1980). Lessons about giftedness and creativity from a nation of 115 million overachievers. Gqted Child Quarterly. 24( 1). 10-14.

Torrance. E. F! (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity (pp. 43-75). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Van Gundy, A. (1987). Organizational creativity and innovation. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Fron- tiers of creativity research (pp. 358-379). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

3-12.

sity Press.

Sam Stem is professor of education at Oregon State University.

the relationship between human resource development and corporate creativity in japan

Documents