This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]On: 30 April 2014, At: 09:12Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Behaviour & Information TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Motivating creativity through a computer-mediatedemployee suggestion management systemJames Fairbank a , William Spangler b & Scott David Williams ca School of Business Penn State Erie , The Behrend College , 5091 Station Road, Erie, PA,16563-1400, USA E-mail:b A.J. Palumbo School of Business Administration , Duquesne University , Pittsburgh, PA,15282, USA E-mail:c Raj Soin College of Business , Wright State University , 270 Rike Hall, Dayton, OH,45435-0001, USA E-mail:Published online: 08 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: James Fairbank , William Spangler & Scott David Williams (2003) Motivating creativity through acomputer-mediated employee suggestion management system, Behaviour & Information Technology, 22:5, 305-314, DOI:10.1080/01449290310001593630

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001593630

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Motivating creativity through acomputer-mediated employee suggestionmanagement system

JAMES F. FAIRBANK{, WILLIAM E. SPANGLER{ and SCOTT DAVID WILLIAMS}

{School of Business, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, 5091 Station Road, Erie, PA 16563-1400, USA;e-mail: JFF108@psu.edu

{A.J. Palumbo School of Business Administration, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA;e-mail: spangler@duq.edu

}Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, 270 Rike Hall, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, USA;e-mail: Scott.Williams@wright.edu

Abstract. This paper describes the requirements for anautomated employee suggestion management system (ESMS)based on expectancy theory and computer-mediated commu-nications. Although research has found that suggestion systemscan be a useful way to obtain and utilize employees’ creativeideas, effective suggestion management systems must alsomotivate employees to think creatively and to participate inthe suggestion process. According to expectancy theory,employees are most strongly motivated to participate whenthey believe that they can do so successfully and when theyknow that their participation will result in an outcome that theyvalue. The system proposed here addresses the requirements ofexpectancy theory, and the weaknesses of existing suggestionsystems, by establishing a communications infrastructure andprotocol similar to those used in group decision supportsystems. The systemmotivates employees to submit suggestionsby providing an interactive networked forum within whichemployees and interested stakeholders can openly debate theirmerits.

1. Introduction

To survive and prosper in today’s intensely competitiveand complex environment, organizations must innovate.In recent years, forces such as the high rate oftechnological innovation and reductions in barriers tointernational trade have markedly increased both thenumber of opportunities that can be exploited and thenumber of threats that organizations face. The ability toinnovate is key to achieving a competitive advantage andsurviving over the long-run (Hamel 2000,Hitt et al. 2000).

Every innovation begins with a creative idea (Glynn1996). Innovations come in both incremental andradical varieties (Reilly et al. 2002). Incrementalinnovations include any modifications of work methodsand output that improve efficiency, quality, customersatisfaction, and so on. Installing automated lightdimmers to save electricity, and creating a website forselling gift packages are examples of lucrative incre-mental innovations. In contrast to incremental innova-tions, radical innovations transform or create newmarkets. The invention of traveller’s checks and theclay – shale mixture used on baseball infields areexamples of radical innovations. Fortunately, everyemployee is a potential source of creative ideas (deBono 1970).

Despite the value of harnessing all employees’creativity, however, businesses frequently rely on a feworganizational subunits and personnel for creative ideas.For example, many organizations rely heavily on theirmarketing and research and development (R&D) unitsfor creative ideas (McAdam and McClelland 2002).Additionally, some organizations – for the sake of orderand efficiency – develop mechanistic structures andcultures that direct attention to existing work methodsand standards, and imply that experimentation andcreativity are not valued (Burns and Stalker 1961). Suchstructures fail to encourage and utilize employees’capacity to identify innovative ways to improve theirorganization’s processes and products.

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2003, VOL. 22, NO. 5, 305–314

Behaviour & Information TechnologyISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/01449290310001593630

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

The potential value of employee suggestions isillustrated by the fact that the light dimmer, gift packageweb sales, traveller’s checks, and clay – shale mixtureinnovations are all attributable to employees’ sugges-tions (Trunko 1993, Waxler 1998, Flaherty 2001).However, those successes represent the exception ratherthan the rule. Traditional suggestion systems, involvingprocesses that are subject to human error, self-interest,and indifference, seldom motivate (let alone encourage)employees to participate.

Managers, however, can overcome those limitationsand stimulate creativity and innovation by linking arelatively old but proven process (i.e., employee sugges-tions) to a relatively new but almost ubiquitoustechnology (i.e., information systems), thus forming aninformation system (IS)-based employee suggestionmanagement system (ESMS). The key to a successfulIS-based ESMS, in turn, is two-fold. It requires a strongtheoretical motivational foundation that encouragesemployee creativity, and it requires an IS model thatprovides a communication infrastructure for promotingthe free-flow of suggestions, ideas, rationales, andperspectives between and among organizational stake-holders.

A feasible theoretical basis for this type of ESMS isprovided by expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), a process-based perspective of individual motivation that hasreceived considerable empirical validation (Schwab etal.1979). According to expectancy theory, employees aremost strongly motivated to attempt a task (a) when theybelieve that they have the ability to successfullycomplete it, (b) when they believe that successfulperformance of that task will be instrumental inachieving an outcome, and (c) when they expect theoutcome to be rewarding to them. Therefore, accordingto expectancy theory, an implemented ESMS canmotivate employees to offer suggestions by helping toengender and nurture each of these beliefs and expecta-tions (Fairbank and Williams 2001).

The information systems model, in turn, shouldfacilitate the flow of information among the variousstakeholders – in this case, between employees who areproviding suggestions and managers who are respon-sible for responding to those suggestions in somemanner. Essentially, and ideally, the model shouldsupport collaborative problem solving, wherein an initialsuggestion becomes the subject of discussion andnegotiation between the various stakeholders, in turnleading to some form of resolution of the problem.

From this perspective, computer-mediated commu-nications, implemented within an enterprise-wide groupdecision support system (GDSS), provide an appro-priate forum for the communication, discussion, adap-tation, and implementation of employee suggestions.

GDSSs generally seek to improve decision-making byfacilitating communication through the removal orreduction of communication barriers, including thoseimposed by hierarchical authority, and by providingsupport for the task at hand (Lam 1997, Nunamaker etal. 1997). The issue of communication support and taskstructuring is particularly compelling when the group issomewhat heterogeneous, meaning that its participantshave access to different information and possessdifferent knowledge of the task at hand – both of whichcharacterize distributed knowledge in organizations.Furthermore, with an increasing trend toward geogra-phically-distributed organizational communication,wherein meetings are often conducted asynchronouslythrough the use of e-mail, voice mail, and discussionforums, a computer-based support system can facilitatecommunication between individual parties and thusassist the organization collectively in making decisions.Under these circumstances, the GDSS role of helpingparticipants to identify stakeholders, to discover incon-sistencies and differences between individual partici-pants, and to determine individual assumptions(Nunamaker et al. 1997) becomes particularly importantin the process of resolving employee suggestions. Thatis, by framing the task of managing employee sugges-tions as one of collaborative problem solving, a GDSScan assist the various stakeholders in communicatingsuggestions and responses, understanding the rationaleunderlying the various perspectives, and constructingfrom the initial suggestion an implementation plan thatwill benefit the organization.

The remainder of this paper is presented as follows.We begin by describing traditional employee suggestionsystems, including problems with current implementa-tions. We then discuss expectancy theory, focusing onhow the elements of the theory apply to the problem ofsoliciting creative employee suggestions, and how thoseelements might be addressed through computer-mediated communications. We then present an outlineof a proposed automated employee suggestion manage-ment system, based on the design principles andobjectives of computer-mediated communications andgroup decision support systems. We conclude with adiscussion of the role of ESMS in creating an effectiveorganizational network for capturing employee creativ-ity.

2. Employee suggestion systems

The general concept of employee suggestion systems isnothing new, but with the increased environmentalcomplexity and dynamism facing businesses today, ithas taken on greater importance. The role of ESMS in

306 J. F. Fairbank et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

promoting innovation in organizations of the futuremight best be understood from a problem-solvingperspective. In this context, a ‘problem’ is any dis-crepancy between the current state and a desired futurestate (Pounds 1969). The term refers to both crises thatmust be resolved and opportunities that might beexploited. Change in organizational environments cre-ates problems. Employee creativity produces solutionsthat can advance an organization incrementally ordramatically toward a desired future state (e.g., im-provements in profits, market share or competitiveadvantage). Creativity is the generation of novel anduseful solutions to problems. Therefore, an ESMS thatpromotes and captures employees’ creativity is becom-ing more important as change in organizationalenvironments increases.

Many organizations have attempted to implementsuggestion systems, but they often fall far short ofachieving their potential. In many instances, firms havesimply mounted a locked, wooden box on the wall in acommon area, which is unlocked and emptied at oddintervals by a clerical or human resources professionalwho discards the candy wrappers and records thesuggestions for unspecified actions at an unknown time.Such practises tend to fail and have consequently madeexecutives and employees suspicious of suggestionsystems of this kind. They fail to motivate employeesto participate because (1) they often do not offercompensation or rewards of any type for participation,(2) submitters do not understand the process throughwhich their suggestions are evaluated, and (3) there arelong delays in getting the suggestions processed. As aresult, the suggestion system is viewed with mistrust orindifference.

In contrast, the systems described in this article aretechnologically sophisticated, formal ESMSs designedto stimulate employees’ motivation to think creativelyand submit their ideas. ‘Technologically sophisticated’refers to (a) the ability to electronically assimilate,process and transform individual-level inputs (employ-ees’ knowledge and insights), (b) the flexibility to givesubmitters user-selected options (e.g., degree of anon-ymity, collaboration with co-workers), and (c) theability to provide individual-level feedback (e.g., statusreports, online discussion, award notification). ‘Formal’refers to the use of a systematic, documented procedurefor accepting and evaluating suggestions. As this articleexplains, technologically sophisticated, formal ESMSsare superior to the stereotypical suggestion box becausethey make it easier for employees to submit ideas thatwill eventually be implemented, provide a transparentprocess for evaluating the suggestions, and generatetimely feedback regarding the fate of the suggestionsand any rewards they earn.

In summary, suggestion systems have been around fordecades, but new technology and the greater need fororganizational innovation necessitate a re-examinationof how such systems can be designed to most effectivelymotivate and capture employee creativity. Managersmust realize that the characteristic of their ESMS impacttheir employees’ motivation to generate creative ideasand submit them for consideration.

3. Suggestion management system features that motivate

creativity

To be optimally effective, ESMSs must promote bothintrinsic and extrinsic employee motivation (Fairbankand Williams 2001). Many suggestion system plans haveoffered incentives to submitters in the form of rewardsfor implemented suggestions. However, rewards must bescrutinized to ensure that they promote extrinsicmotivation without extinguishing intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation is the drive to perform a task forits own sake rather than for any external rewardreceived in exchange for performing the task (Briefand Aldag 1977). Employees tend to find tasks thatprovide challenge, performance feedback, and a sensethat the work is significant intrinsically motivating(Hackman and Oldham 1976). Employee creativity ishighest when employees are intrinsically motivated(Woodman et al. 1993, Amabile 1996, Oldham andCummings 1996). Jobs that involve challenge, autono-my, and feedback promote creativity. In addition, asense that the work is significant can promote intrinsicmotivation and creativity.

However, intrinsic motivation also requires a sense ofchoice, self-determination, or autonomy. Organizationalpressures, inadequate incentives, or strong but incorrectincentives for working on a particular task can under-mine any intrinsic motivation to perform that task.Incentives can be risky, because they can result in an‘overjustification’ effect where the task performer focuseson performing the task for the extrinsic incentives ratherthan for the intrinsic challenge (Deci 1972). In short, thepresence of the wrong extrinsic incentives can actuallyreduce task performers’ sense of self-determination.

Despite the importance of intrinsic motivation tocreativity, extrinsic motivation must be given at leastequal attention. First, creativity is only one behaviourthat ESMSs must motivate; they must also motivateemployees to submit their suggestions. While intrinsicmotivation elicits and promotes the generation ofcreative ideas, intrinsic motivation may be much lesseffective than extrinsic motivation at encouragingemployees to go to the effort to actually submit theirideas. Second, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be

307Motivating creativity through a management system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

additive (Wiersma 1992, Amabile 1996). Rewards thatindicate the importance of a task and signify anaccomplishment have feedback value. That is, employ-ees may perceive the reward structure of an ESMS as asign of its significance, and perceive rewards that theyreceive for their suggestions as signs of their accom-plishments and competence. In this manner, intrinsicand extrinsic motivation can have an additive effect.

Although the model of the motivational implicationsof suggestion system design that we present is organizedaround expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) – a theorymore closely associated with extrinsic motivation thanintrinsic – the additive benefits of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation are also considered. The expectancy theoryframework was chosen because it has received consider-able empirical support (Schwab et al. 1979), and becauseit also permits a discussion of some of the major intrinsicmotivation considerations (namely, sense of compe-tence, feedback, task significance, and over justifica-tion).

Expectancy theory of motivation indicates that themotivational force for performing a task is greatestwhen the performer believes that (a) he or she is able tosuccessfully complete the task (i.e., high expectancy), (b)completing the task will lead to certain outcomes (i.e.,high instrumentality), and (c) the outcomes for complet-ing the task are attractive (i.e., high valence, or value).Effective ESMSs maximize expectancy, instrumentality,and valence.

3.1. Maximizing expectancy

Employees who expect to successfully complete a tasktend to be more motivated to perform it than employeeswho do not expect their efforts to lead to success.Therefore, ESMS features that maximize expectancieswill promote employee motivation. Expectancies can beincreased by boosting employees’ perceptions of theirabilities and by making the task seem less difficult.

Employees’ beliefs in their abilities can be enhancedthrough performance feedback, verbal encouragement,and providing models of successful performance (Ban-dura 1986, Ford 1996). ESMSs can promote a sense ofmastery for submitters by providing feedback onsuccessful performances and carefully responding tounsuccessful performances. At the most basic level,submitters need to know that they have been successfulat submitting a suggestion. Physical suggestion boxes donot acknowledge that management has received sugges-tions submitted, but technologically sophisticatedESMSs can acknowledge receipt and explain the nextstep in the process. Submitters can also obtain auto-matic, instant feedback on their suggestion progress

through the various stages of the system and words ofappreciation for suggestions that will be implemented.Unfortunately, many suggestions will not be judged asworthy of implementation, so careful management ofunfavourable feedback is essential. Negative feedbackmust be more informative than judgmental. Criticismtends to stifle creativity, but informational feedback mayactually be helpful because it can be used to improve thequality of the creative output (Amabile 1996). In fact,ESMS should avoid rejecting submissions as much aspossible. Many suggestions that cannot be implementedmight be salvageable upon revision. Employees whowork in what they perceive as a ‘safe’ climate forcreativity tend to make more suggestions (Axtell et al.2000).

ESMS administrators can also improve expectanciesby verbally persuading employees that they can be asource of valuable ideas, and by providing examples ofhow their peers have done so. ESMS administratorscannot assume that just because they are providing anoutlet for creativity that employees will believe that theyare capable of being creative. All employees, irrespectiveof their experience or education, should be encouragedto participate. Periodic e-mail reminders and invitationsto submit could encourage participation. In addition, e-mail reminders can also provide examples of peers’submissions which in turn serve as models to demon-strate how others can participate successfully.

To maximize expectancy, the task of generating andsubmitting ideas must be easy. Minimally, electronicsuggestion forms can assist the process of submitting byallowing suggestions to be saved and edited. Moreimportantly, collaboration among co-workers makes thetask of generating original, useful suggestions easier andpromotes creativity. Creative problem-solving requiresadequate knowledge of the problem (Amabile 1988).That knowledge is often distributed throughout theorganization. Collaboration enhances the usefulness ofemployees’ novel ideas by drawing on more knowledgeto improve their initial, naı̈ve ideas.

3.2. Maximizing instrumentality

Instrumentality is the belief that task accomplishmentwill lead to measurable outcome(s). Employees whobelieve that their successful performance will result intheir attainment of favorable outcomes tend to be moremotivated than employees who do not. Hence, employ-ees will not be strongly motivated to participate in anESMS if they believe that (a) suggestions will not beevaluated, (b) evaluation of suggestions will be errant orbiased, (c) system administrators will be unable to getthe suggestions implemented, or (d) they will not get

308 J. F. Fairbank et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

equitable credit for their suggestions. Both computerand human aspects of ESMSs must be structuredeffectively to promote high instrumentality.

To ensure that suggestions are evaluated and thatemployees are aware that they are being evaluated,ESMSs should ensure a rapid, transparent, and inter-active process. A limit should be placed on the timeallowed for routing each suggestion to evaluators andfor their evaluations. A tracking system that showswhere each suggestion is in the evaluation process alsodemonstrates to submitters that their suggestions arebeing evaluated. Physical suggestion systems that rely onboxes seldom offer any tracking features.

A major problem encountered by many suggestionsystems in the past has been the perception thatorganizational politics influence which suggestions getaccepted and which get rejected. Making the processsystematic and transparent, and providing detailedfeedback on suggestions that are not accepted, removesthe mystery surrounding the process, which mightreduce the perception that the process is political.

Technologically sophisticated ESMSs can easily masksubmitters’ identities, which can also help. However,evaluators might still be biased. For example, an ESMSmight initially route suggestions to the submitters’immediate supervisors. Such a procedure is expedient,but it allows supervisors’ biases and personal agendas toinfluence the effectiveness of the system. If the ESMSinstead first routes suggestions to a cross-functional team,which regularly changes its membership, then employeesmay believe that their suggestions will get a fair hearing.

Another problem frequently encountered by ESMSs isthat the administrator, being of low status or from a stafffunction rather than a line function, is unable get goodsuggestions implemented. Too often, ESMSs have beenviewed as being something ‘for the employees’ ratherthan as a source of valuable innovative ideas (Trunko1993). Consequently, human resources professionalshave initiated and administered the ESMS. When theseadministrators take innovative ideas to line managers forimplementation, they often find that they lack thecredibility and influence to get the suggestions imple-mented. If employees believe that the administrator lacksthe ability to implement suggestions, their motivation tosubmit them (and the value of the ESMS to theorganization) will be low. For this reason, employees’motivation to participate will tend to be higher if linemanagers are more directly involved in the system.

3.3. Maximizing valence

For incentives and other outcomes to motivateemployees to perform a task, the employees have to

value those outcomes. Valence is a measure of theattractiveness of a reward to an individual employee.Valence is high when the reward for successfullyperforming a task suits an employee’s needs.

When offering incentives for creative performance, itis vital that the rewards do not extinguish intrinsicmotivation. Intrinsic motivation is highest when indivi-duals perceive themselves to be freely choosing toperform a task. Offering incentives for task performancecan engender the perception that the incentives are thereason for performance. In other words, offeringextrinsic incentives can supplant intrinsic motivation.However, intrinsic motivation survives the introductionof extrinsic rewards if the extrinsic rewards are perceivedas a form of performance feedback; performance feed-back is essential to intrinsic motivation. As previouslystated, Amabile’s (1996) research on intrinsic motivationand creativity has found that intrinsic motivation andextrinsic motivation can have an additive effect oncreativity. In addition, a reward system for participatingin an ESMS communicates the significance of employ-ees’ creativity to their organization. As Kerr (1975) isfamous for saying, it is folly for managers to reward task‘A’ while hoping for ‘B’. Reward systems show employ-ees what is important and worthy of their attention.

ESMSs could offer cash rewards for implementedsuggestions. Employees could then choose to spend themoney on the goods or services that have the greatestvalence for them. It is also easy to make cash rewardsproportional to the value of the suggestions. However,cash rewards create additional problems. In manyorganizations there are significant bureaucratic controlson any money dispersed to employees, making deliveryof the rewards cumbersome.

An alternative to offering cash rewards is to offercredit that can be used to purchase merchandise. Manypromotional agencies that produce novelty and logo-imprinted items for marketing campaigns can coordi-nate a fulfillment program for an ESMS. Various prizescan be arrayed online in a ‘corporate catalogue’.

In addition, to motivate employees to continuesubmitting their ideas, an ESMS can also provide tokenrewards to anyone who submits a suggestion, even ifthat suggestion is not implemented. The more employeeparticipation the ESMS achieves, the more creativeoutput it will yield, ceteris paribus.

In summary, an effective ESMS is one that motivatesboth creative thinking and participation in the system.An effective ESMS motivates employees to participatein creative problem-solving, and facilitates collaborationin those efforts. Technologically sophisticated, formalESMSs also enhance perceptions that the system is fairand efficacious by involving participants from variousorganizational units, allowing for anonymous participa-

309Motivating creativity through a management system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

tion, encouraging timely response, and providing feed-back on the status of suggestions as they progressthrough the system. Finally, effective ESMSs providefeedback to submitters and rewards for useful solutionsin a manner that promotes both intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation.

4. System requirements for computer-mediated

communication

We will now describe the requirements of a computer-mediated communication system or GDSS that willincorporate the attributes of an effective ESMS byexploiting the advantages of expectancy theory. Speci-fically, the GDSS should address the following char-acteristics of the task environment:

. Stakeholders might have access to differentinformation, or they might have access to thesame information resources but possess differentknowledge of the situation. Notably, with differentknowledge comes different interpretations of theavailable (and potentially shared) information,different forecasts of possible outcomes, anddifferent proposed solutions.

. Conflict between and among participants is causedby differences in knowledge as well as bydifferences in motives, objectives, or goals. Never-theless, the objective of the GDSS and theparticipants is to find solutions that are mostadvantageous to the encompassing organization,whose goals in turn are superordinate to theparticipants. The process involves negotiation, butthe outcome both for the individual members andfor the organization should be mutual gain.

. A ‘group’ discussing employee suggestions is notnecessarily a traditional collection of decision-makers meeting at a single time and place, but israther an ad hoc, distributed association ofinterested stakeholders connected by a telecom-munications network. Consequently, stakeholderscan be, and likely are, separated both temporallyand spatially, and as such are likely to commu-nicate asynchronously. This is important inframing the employee suggestion process as agroup decision process.

These circumstances require a GDSS model thatfacilitates negotiation, wherein possible conflicts andinconsistencies of solutions are communicated andresolved to the benefit of the overall organization. Theconflict resolution process is difficult, partly becausegroup knowledge and outcomes are more than the sum

of the individual contributions. Group decision-makingis a process in which tacit knowledge is also inherent inthe interactions between and among members. Under-standing how groups make decisions, particularly incases of potential conflict and disagreement, thusrequires an understanding of the structures of individualknowledge, as well as the processes by which individualknowledge elements interact to produce group out-comes.

The type of GDSS proposed for employee suggestionmanagement establishes a communication infrastructurethat provides a standard format for participant taskknowledge, and then allows other participants asyn-chronous access to that structure. This standard formatincludes not only the content of and rationale support-ing participant knowledge, but also the level of belief orcertainty that each participant has in his or herknowledge. As a result, the underlying GDSS modelprovides an explanatory framework that makes explicitthe reasons why disagreements or inconsistencies mightexist, and thus provides a means by which participantscan interactively understand and perhaps resolve thoseinconsistencies. The essential proposition is that, byestablishing a knowledge infrastructure and protocol foridentifying, explaining, and resolving potential disagree-ments among temporally and spatially distributedstakeholders, a GDSS can help the organization tobetter understand the organizational problems thatstimulate employee suggestions, and to develop bettersolutions to those problems.

Furthermore, the type of task and the setting in whichthe task is performed are important in determininggroup decision-making processes and outputs (Dennis etal. 1997, Lam 1997, Nunamaker 1997, El-Shinnawy andVinze 1998). Lam (1997), for example, studied theimpact of three basic task types – additive, disjunctive,and conjunctive – on GDSS performance. In an additivetask, each group member has the same information, andthe group reaches a decision collectively. In a disjunctivetask, group members have different information, and thegroup chooses what they determine to be the bestindividual solution. Finally, in a conjunctive task, eachgroup member also has different information, but thegroup is still expected to reach a decision collectively,through interaction, where a solution is pieced togetherfrom the constituents provided by each member. Lam(1997) showed that GDSS improves the performance ofdisjunctive and conjunctive tasks, but not of additivetasks, primarily because the former are more complexand have higher knowledge requirements.

As we have framed it, the task of managing employeesuggestions within an organization ideally is a con-junctive task. That is, no single stakeholder hascomplete knowledge, including the employee who is

310 J. F. Fairbank et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

offering a suggestion, and therefore a solution must beachieved through communication and reconciliation ofdisparate knowledge. Thus, because a GDSS is mosteffective when knowledge and information are distrib-uted across multiple stakeholders – that is, in con-junctive and disjunctive tasks – a GDSS model is anappropriate approach to employee suggestion systems.

The utility of a GDSS in supporting complex tasks isalso due to the ability of a GDSS to manage both taskconflict and social conflict, both of which are likely tooccur when employees offer and discuss suggestions.Task conflict, which promotes the communication ofmultiple perspectives and solutions, is constructive tothe group decision process. Conversely, social conflict isdisruptive to the process and may prevent the groupfrom achieving an acceptable outcome. Properly de-signed GDSSs tend to promote task conflict anddiscourage social conflict by allowing the open commu-nication of diverse views and the construction of a morecomplete task perspective.

5. Design of a proposed ESMS

This section presents the design of an IS-based ESMS,built on the conceptual foundation provided byexpectancy theory and the GDSS framework. Inconsideration of the requirements discussed earlier, thegeneral functionality of the system should include thefollowing features:

. an accessible interface for submitting suggestions

. a dynamic routing capability, which would (a)direct a suggestion to the person(s) best qualifiedto comment on it, and (b) direct comments to theother stakeholders, including the initiator of thesuggestion and the ESS administrator

. a central knowledge repository wherein sugges-tions and feedback could be deposited anddiscussed in an open, interactive forum

. information about stakeholders and originatorknowledge and preferences

. a mechanism for monitoring the progress ofsuggestions through the system

. support for an ESMS administrator

Figure 1 is a high-level illustration of the system,depicted as a data flow diagram showing howinformation is channeled through the series ofprocesses comprising the ESMS. The process beginswith an employee’s submission of a suggestion andassociated options (e.g., stakeholders to whom thesuggestion should be routed, or not routed, anddegree of originator anonymity) – illustrated as a

data flow originating from the employee (‘originator’).The suggestion is input to a process that receives andformats the suggestion, where formatting entailslabelling and identifying the suggestion in terms ofits originator, the general type of problem addressed,the area(s) of the business affected, and so on. Theprocess then sends the formatted suggestion to theroute suggestion process, which in turn performs threetasks: (1) it sends an acknowledgement to theoriginator, (2) it stores the suggestion within thesuggestion repository, which will retain the history ofall submitted suggestions and related actions, and (3)it sends the suggestion to all stakeholders who mighthave an interest in the suggestion, and solicits theircomments. The list of stakeholders to whom thesuggestion is sent is constructed by matching theproblem and business attributes of the formattedsuggestion to the corresponding attributes of knownstakeholders as well as those who might be selected bythe originator.

Because the submission and routing of a suggestion isintended to evoke a response from one or morestakeholders, the system receives and processes stake-holder comments in a manner similar to suggestions.Each comment is formatted and routed to the sugges-tion repository along with the original suggestion, whereit is available to be accessed by other stakeholders, theoriginator, and the ESMS administrator.

The system also provides a means for stakeholders toinquire into the status of a suggestion. As shown, arequest is entered into the system, which retrievescurrent information about the relevant suggestion andits associated comments, and then displays the informa-tion to the stakeholder. Information provided caninclude the specifics of the suggestion and eachcomment, as well as the stakeholders who have providedcomments (i.e., those recorded in the suggestionrepository) and those who could provide comments(i.e., the list of relevant stakeholders to whom theoriginal suggestion was routed).

The objectives of the envisioned system are similar toa GDSS, in that it should facilitate communicationwhereby the group – i.e., the originator and otherstakeholders – proceeds toward some type of resolution.Communication is facilitated through specific featuresof the system, including the automated routing facilityand the suggestion repository. In addition, like otherGDSSs, the system should encourage the free-flow ofideas by allowing the submission of anonymous com-munications – including both suggestions and com-ments. The rationale is that suggestions and commentsshould be considered on their merits, rather than onpolitical and/or personal relationships between andamong stakeholders. In the context of GDSS theory,

311Motivating creativity through a management system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

the system encourages task conflict rather than socialconflict by allowing stakeholders to comment frankly onthe merits of a suggestion or comment withoutengendering personal conflicts.

As the discussion proceeds, the system records thesuggestion, subsequent comments for and against thesuggestion, and ideas for modifying the suggestion tobetter address the root problem. In the interest ofexpediting the process, it also monitors the status andtimeliness of comments, and when necessary promptsstakeholders to respond within a prescribed timeframe.Three outcomes are possible: (1) the suggestion can beaccepted without modifications, (2) the suggestion canbe accepted with modifications, or (3) the suggestion canbe rejected. Ideally, the group will come to a consensusregarding whether and how to implement the sugges-

tion. In most cases the suggestion will have received athorough airing, and each party therefore should feel asthough his or her ideas were fairly considered. Rejectionof the suggestion should come only after the originatorhas had sufficient opportunities to work with otherstakeholders to improve the suggestion, and only afterthe originator has been recognized for his or hercontribution.

Toward that end, the system provides a mechanismfor assisting the ESMS administrator in determining anappropriate award for the originator. A separate processallows the originator to enter his or her rewardpreferences, which are stored by the system forsubsequent retrieval by the ESMS administrator.Additionally, the system will allow the administratorto generate reports summarizing successful suggestions,

Figure 1. Data flow diagram of an IS-based employee suggestion management system.

312 J. F. Fairbank et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

which in turn are distributed system-wide through thenetwork. Those publicized successes will help tomotivate future submissions.

6. Future research and conclusions

The next phase of our research project would be tobuild and validate a system based on the specificationoutlined in this paper, prior to its eventual implementa-tion in an organization. We would begin with a smallpilot application, focusing initially on the structure andimplementation of the suggestion repository and stake-holder database. Using a prototyping approach, wewould then construct processes to (1) format and storeoriginator suggestions within the repository, (2) matchand route specific suggestions to relevant stakeholders,and (3) format and route stakeholder comments backinto the repository. With these components in place, wewould then assemble a set of subjects – perhaps in aworkgroup or department – to begin to validate theeffectiveness of the system. Early testing of the systemwould involve a small group of originators andstakeholders, who would submit and receive suggestionsand also comment on the overall utility of the system.Initial validation criteria essentially would be limited touser perceptions of system technical effectiveness. Later,we would correct and enhance the system based on userfeedback and expand the size of the test environment.We also would extend the validation criteria to includethe impact of improved communication on organiza-tional effectiveness. Finally, we would collect organiza-tional feedback and compare it to baseline data todetermine whether bottom-line results were achieved –namely, an improvement in the quantity and quality ofsuggestions submitted for consideration and evaluation.

The IS-based ESMS we have proposed replaces thetraditional, passive suggestion box system with an activesystem designed to stimulate the suggestion process.Designed as we have discussed, the system is a means ofcapturing creativity through an interactive network ofcollaborators (cf. Briggs and de Vreede 1997). Techno-logically sophisticated ESMSs possess tremendouspotential not only to motivate employees to submit agreater number of suggestions, but also to ultimatelyfacilitate higher-quality suggestions. By encouragingemployees’ creativity, fostering collaboration, and pro-viding recognition for good suggestions, ESMSs cancontribute to an organizational culture where creativityand innovation are valued.

Effective ESMSs can help harness latent employeecreativity. ESMSs can (and should be) a means offacilitating the process of motivating employees to thinkmore creatively, to share those creative thoughts, and to

convert creative ideas into valuable innovations. ESMSthat are structured in the manner we describe also alignemployees’ goals with their organizations’ priorities.When an organization uses a well-conceived ESMS, itreduces the need for its managers to motivate theiremployees to be creative through encouragement,inspirational appeals, or other interpersonal means thatmight or might not work.

Although many of the characteristics of the ESMSwe have proposed are features of the system itself, werecognize that some of those characteristics (e.g., type,tone, and timing of feedback) are more closelyidentified with an organization’s culture. Accordingly,we do not suggest that the implementation of anESMS, per se, will solve the problem of idea sharing inthe generation of creativity and innovation. In otherwords, the process of managing employee suggestions isa function not only of the system itself, but also theculture in which the system exists. Organizations thatwish to maximize the effectiveness of an ESMS need toensure that their culture is aligned with the attributesof the system. If such a culture is lacking, then anESMS will add little more value than the old-fashionedwooden suggestion box. It is not the purpose of thispaper to argue or even imply that an ESMS introducedin an organization will alter its culture. Instead, webelieve that organizations whose cultures alreadyencourage collaborative problem-solving and the opensharing of information are those that will benefit themost from an ESMS.

ESMSs with the features described here can beimplemented as a component of virtually any organiza-tion’s information system. Over the longer term, thistype of system could enhance an organization’s knowl-edge management and learning capabilities, therebyenhancing its competitiveness (Argyris and Schon 1978,Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Grant, 1996). Businessesoperating in dynamic environments in which innovationis required as a strategic imperative should find theimplications of an effective ESMS to be clear andobvious. But even businesses that operate in more stableenvironments, where opportunities to be creative areoften overlooked, can use ESMSs to provide an avenuefor creativity and signal that creative ideas are valued.

References

AMABILE, T. M. 1988, A model of creativity and innovation inorganizations. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds)Research in Organizational Behaviour, 10, (Greenwich, CT,USA: JAI Press), pp. 123 – 167.

AMABILE, T. M. 1996, Creativity in Context (Boulder, CO,USA: Westview Press).

313Motivating creativity through a management system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014

ARGYRIS, C. and SCHON, D. A. 1978, Organizational Learning:A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading, MA, USA:Addison-Wesley).

AXTELL, C. J., HOLMAN, D. J., UNSWORTH, K. L., WALL, T. D.and WATERSON, P. E. 2000, Shopfloor innovation: Facilitat-ing the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265 – 285.

BANDURA, A. 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action:A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:Prentice-Hall).

BRIEF, A. P. and ALDAG, R. J. 1977, The intrinsic-extrinsicdichotomy: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 2, 496 – 499.

BRIGGS, R. O. and DE VREEDE, G.-J. 1997, Meetings of thefuture: Enhancing group collaboration with group supportsystems. Creativity and Innovation Management, 6(2), 106 –116.

BURNS, T. and STALKER, G. M. 1961, The Management ofInnovation (London: Tavistock).

DE BONO, E. 1970, Lateral Thinking: a Textbook of Creativity(London: Ward Lock Educational).

DECI, E. 1972, The effects of contingent and noncontingentrewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. OrganizationalBehaviour and Human Performance, 8(2), 217 – 229.

DENNIS, A. R., TYRAN, C. K., VOGEL, D. R. and NUNAMAKER, J.1997, Group support systems for strategic planning. Journalof Management Information Systems, 14(1), 155 – 184.

EL-SHINNAWY, M. and VINZE, A. S. 1998, Polarization andpersuasive argumentation: A study of decision making ingroup settings. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 165 – 198.

FAIRBANK, J. F. and WILLIAMS, S. D. 2001, Motivatingcreativity and enhancing innovation through employeesuggestion system technology. Creativity and InnovationManagement, 10(2), 68 – 74.

FLAHERTY, J. 2001, Suggestions rise from the floors of USfactories. New York Times, April 18, p. C1.

FORD, C. 1996, A theory of individual creative action inmultiple social domains. Academy of Management Review,21, 1112 – 1142.

GLYNN, M. 1996, Innovative genius: A framework for relatingindividual and organizational intelligences to innovation.Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081 – 1111.

GRANT, R. M. 1996, Toward a knowledge-based theory of thefirm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special – Winter),109 – 122.

HACKMAN, J. and OLDHAM, G. R. 1976, Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviourand Human Decision Processes, 16(2), 250 – 279.

HAMEL, G. 2000, Leading the revolution (Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press).

HITT, M. A., IRELAND, R. D. and LEE, H. 2000, Technologicallearning, knowledge management, firm growth and perfor-mance: An introductory essay. Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management, 17, 231 – 246.

KERR, S. 1975, On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping forB. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769 – 783.

LAM, S. S. K. 1997, The effects of group decision supportsystems and task structures on group communication anddecision quality. Journal of Management Information Sys-tems, 13(4), 193 – 215.

MCADAM, R. and MCCLELLAND, J. 2002, Sources of newproduct ideas and creativity practises in the UK textileindustry. Technovation, 22(2), 113 – 121.

NONAKA, I. and TAKEUCHI, H. 1995, The Knowledge-CreatingCompany: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics ofInnovation (New York: Oxford University Press).

NUNAMAKER, J. 1997, Future research in group supportsystems: Needs, some questions and possible directions.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 357 –385.

NUNAMAKER, J., BRIGGS, R. O., MITTLEMAN, D. D., VOGEL,D. R. and BALTHAZARD, P. A. 1997, Lessons from a dozenyears of group support systems research: A discussion of laband field findings. Journal of Management InformationSystems, 13(3), 163 – 207.

OLDHAM, G. R. and CUMMINGS, A. 1996, Employee creativity:Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 607 – 634.

POUNDS, W. 1969, The process of problem finding. IndustrialManagement Review, 10, 1 – 19.

REILLY, R. R., LYNN, G. S. and ARONSON, Z. H. 2002, The roleof personality in new product development team perfor-mance. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management,19(1), 39 – 58.

SCHWAB, D. P., OLIAN-GOTTLIEB, J. P. and HENEMAN, H. G. III.1979, Between subjects expectancy theory research: Astatistical review of studies predicting effort and perfor-mance. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 139 – 147.

TRUNKO, M. E. 1993, Open to suggestions. HR Magazine,38(2), 85 – 89.

VROOM, V. H. 1964, Work and motivation (New York: Wiley).WAXLER, C. 1998, The million-dollar suggestion box. Forbes,

162(5), 171 – 172.WIERSMA, U. J. 1992, The effects of extrinsic rewards in

intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupa-tional & Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101 – 114.

WOODMAN, R. W., SAWYER, J. E. and GRIFFIN, R. W. 1993,Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy ofManagement Review, 18, 293 – 321.

314 J. F. Fairbank et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

12 3

0 A

pril

2014