Creativity
From an original perspective to workable innovation.
Competency 14: Creativity
Creativity gains value when new ideas also become useful, shareable and workable.
A familiar workplace situation
A team is struggling with a capacity problem. During a meeting, an employee maps the customer journey, swaps two process steps and proposes carrying out a check as soon as the request is submitted. The unexpected solution generates enthusiasm, but questions soon follow: who will change the process, which department needs to approve it and what are the implications for quality and regulation?
This reveals the dual nature of creativity. An original perspective is the starting point; professional creativity also requires evaluation, alignment with knowledge and constraints, support and implementation.
What is creativity?
Nieuwenhuis (2010) defines creativity as approaching issues from different perspectives, generating original and new ideas and solutions, and breaking established patterns of thought. Related concepts include resourcefulness, innovation, an orientation towards renewal and a solution-focused approach.
Scientific research applies a dual standard: a creative idea is both novel and useful. Creativity concerns the generation of such ideas; innovation concerns their successful implementation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Anderson et al., 2014). The process includes framing the problem, gathering information, combining knowledge, generating alternatives, evaluating them, planning implementation and monitoring results. Evaluation and selection form the crucial transition from idea to innovation (Rietzschel et al., 2026).
A role, a skill or a behavioural competency?
Role
Creativity is not a role. It is just as relevant to a designer as it is to a nurse improving a work process, a technician approaching a fault differently or a controller organising an information request more intelligently.
Skill
Skills such as association, divergent thinking, reframing, conceptual combination, improvisation and evaluation become a competency only when they recur in behaviour. Creativity brings together knowledge, skills, attitude and context: curiosity opens possibilities, professional expertise provides substance, judgement and analysis test ideas, and persuasiveness, collaboration, initiative and commitment support implementation.
Behavioural competency
These relationships are general, but their composition is personal. One professional generates alternatives easily but struggles to select among them, while another starts more slowly and develops a chosen idea carefully. There is no single ideal creative personality.
Scientific evidence
The dynamic componential model explains creativity through the interaction between domain knowledge, creativity-relevant thinking skills, motivation and the social work environment (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The same person may therefore display different behaviour in different situations: freedom without knowledge remains superficial, while expertise without room or motivation repeats familiar solutions.
A meta-analysis of 191 samples involving 51,659 participants shows that intrinsic motivation, confidence in one’s own creative ability and prosocial motivation are each independently associated with creativity (Liu et al., 2016). Enjoyment, belief in one’s own contribution and the desire to create value for others can therefore each be motivating.
Creativity and well-being show a positive but modest average relationship. Across 189 effects from 26 studies involving 8,189 participants, the average relationship was r = .14, stronger for creative behaviour (r = .22) than for divergent-thinking tasks (r = .06) (Acar et al., 2021). This does not establish causality: creative action may support well-being, and well-being may facilitate creative action.
A meta-analysis of 102 effects found higher average creativity in positive, particularly activating moods than in neutral conditions (r = .15) (Baas et al., 2008). Across 76 experiments, mild evaluation pressure was sometimes activating, while strong evaluation pressure reduced performance and uncontrollable pressure showed a linear relationship with lower creativity (Byron et al., 2010).
Creativity and job performance are related but not identical. The relationships with task performance (ρ = .55) and positive behaviour beyond formal task requirements (ρ = .56) were positive, while the relationship with counterproductive behaviour was negative (ρ = -.23) (Harari et al., 2016). Creativity therefore does not replace reliability, quality or a focus on results.
Why this competency has such an impact
Creativity expands the range of possible actions when familiar approaches no longer work, from process improvement and customer needs to labour shortages, digitalisation and societal transitions. Small improvements can also create value. Creative action can contribute to autonomy, meaning and development, but without resources, support and room to learn, it is more likely to create frustration than job satisfaction.
Across 104 team studies, support for innovation, a shared vision, task orientation and external communication showed the strongest relationships with creativity and innovation, with correlations of approximately .40 to .50 (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Individual contributions gain collective value only when information is shared, choices are made and implementation is undertaken together.
A meta-analysis of 266 studies found the strongest relationships between creative performance and authentic, empowering and entrepreneurial leadership. Support and appropriate contingent rewards were also relevant to innovation (Lee et al., 2020). A leader does not need to have the most creative idea, but must organise room, direction, resources and safety.
The three levels of creativity
In Nieuwenhuis’s model, operational creativity concerns looking differently and improving working methods, tactical creativity concerns unexpected perspectives and conceptual connections, and strategic creativity concerns stimulating others, promoting implementation and creating a creative climate. It is a practical model, not a scientifically validated hierarchy. Role and context determine which level is needed; these levels do not correspond directly to the scientific levels of individual, team and organisation.
Operational
Operational creativity means viewing a specific issue from multiple perspectives, examining fixed frameworks and improving working methods. The behaviour becomes immediately visible in an unexpected question, improvisation or a small process change.
Tactical
Tactical creativity connects existing knowledge in unexpected ways, compares possible solutions and works with others towards a proposal that can be shared and transferred.
Strategic
Strategic creativity gives innovation long-term direction, connects ideas and creates the conditions for experimentation, learning, constructive challenge and implementation.
Operational creativity
Main strength
Immediate resourcefulness gets a stalled situation moving and makes an alternative tangible.
Relevant pitfall
Speed can bypass problem analysis and checks on quality, safety and consequences. Originality then becomes impulsiveness.
Workplace example
A service employee creates a visual checklist for missing customer information and tests it on five applications. The number of follow-up requests falls, after which she explores wider use.
Tactical creativity
Main strength
Creative integration brings perspectives, interests and knowledge together in a solution that individuals would not have developed on their own.
Relevant pitfall
Ideas remain stuck in brainstorming or are diluted too early in pursuit of consensus. Co-creation requires both difference and selection criteria.
Workplace example
An HR adviser asks recruiters, new employees and line managers to assess three onboarding concepts against candidate experience, feasibility and cost. One concept is tested and refined in two teams.
Strategic creativity
Main strength
The capacity for innovation becomes part of strategy, leadership, decision-making and work processes instead of depending on one individual.
Relevant pitfall
Vision remains abstract or generates too many initiatives without priority, budget, ownership or decision-making. This creates innovation theatre.
Workplace example
An executive team asks multidisciplinary teams to test AI applications within customer and quality criteria. After each trial, a decision is made about what should stop, be adjusted or scale up; data, expertise and decision-makers are available.
The three levels reinforce one another
Operational creativity produces signals and solutions, tactical creativity connects ideas, knowledge and people, and strategic creativity organises direction and resources. Without tactical development, operational ideas become fragmented; without operational observation, plans address the wrong problem; without both, strategic ambitions remain slogans.
Not every level needs to be equally strong in one person. Complementary teams work when it is clear who identifies signals, develops alternatives, evaluates, builds support and implements.
Effective use starts with the right match
Operational roles often require operational creativity for improvisation, tailored solutions and improvement within quality limits. Project management, advisory work, product development, HR and process design more often require tactical creativity: conceptual thinking, processing feedback and making selections together. In leadership, organisational development and innovation portfolios, strategic creativity carries more weight because of the long time horizon and resources required.
A mismatch leads to incorrect conclusions. An operational creator may be less visible in a strategy session, while a strategic innovator may improvise less quickly when facing a customer problem. Both can be creative, but at a different level.
Why organisations often assess this competency incorrectly
Organisations often confuse creativity with producing many ideas or showing verbal enthusiasm. Usefulness, evaluation and development are also part of the competency; a quietly expressed process idea may be more innovative than a striking presentation.
Creativity is not a fixed trait either. A meta-analysis of 42 studies identifies support, autonomy, intellectual stimulation, resources and tolerance for risk as predictors of creative performance (Hunter et al., 2007). Limited visible behaviour may therefore also indicate limited opportunity, strong control or a punitive climate.
A profile percentage describes visible behaviour within the method and assessment period; it does not prove aptitude or independently predict future performance. In a work sample, therefore, ask candidates to reframe an ambiguous problem, develop options, apply criteria, process feedback and formulate a next step.
In LinkedIn research among 1,271 recruitment professionals across 23 countries, 93% considered accurate skills assessment crucial, while 25% had strong confidence in their own assessment practices. On the platform, 70% of vacancies listed specific skills, but only 13% of recruiter searches used a skills filter (LinkedIn, 2024, 2025). These company data reveal the implementation gap.
Demand for creativity is increasing
The Future of Jobs Report 2025 covers more than 1,000 employers representing over 14 million employees in 55 economies. Of these employers, 57% identify creative thinking as a core skill, ranking it fourth. Employers expect 39% of core skills to change by 2030; 63% cite skills gaps as a barrier to transformation, 85% plan to upskill their workforce and 70% intend to hire people with new skills (World Economic Forum, 2025).
In the EU, 51.4% of enterprises were innovation-active in 2020-2022: 47% of small, 64% of medium-sized and 78% of large enterprises. Ongoing and abandoned activities are also included; only 9% introduced innovations that reduced energy use or CO2 emissions (Eurostat, 2026a).
The Netherlands ranked third in the European Innovation Scoreboard 2026, at 27.4% above the EU average compared with 31.8% two years earlier. R&D investment amounted to 2.29% of GDP, below the European target of 3% (European Commission, 2026; Government of the Netherlands, 2026).
In 2025, 20.0% of EU enterprises used AI, compared with 13.5% in 2024. The figure was 33.2% in the Netherlands and 67.6% among large Dutch enterprises (Eurostat, 2025). In an experiment involving 758 BCG consultants, AI led to 12.2% more completed tasks and a 25.1% increase in speed for tasks within the measured AI capability frontier; beyond that frontier, users were 19% less likely to be correct (Dell’Acqua et al., 2026). Problem selection, evaluation and contextual knowledge therefore become more important.
In the first PISA assessment, 78% of 15-year-olds across 64 countries and economies reached the baseline level in creative thinking; around half were able to produce original and diverse ideas in simple tasks. In twenty lower-performing countries, fewer than half reached the baseline level (OECD, 2024). Creativity is therefore also an educational and developmental issue.
An example: from profile to development direction
The personal case profile of a 21-year-old female student shows that creativity was visible during the assessment period at 100% operational level, 33% tactical level and 44% strategic level. This distribution is not a judgement of her talent or identity, but an invitation to explore the situations in which her creativity already comes into its own and where she may benefit from support.
The operational score aligns with generating ideas quickly, improvising and making solutions tangible straight away. Her strong operational judgement and persuasiveness can help her assess ideas immediately and present them engagingly. The strategic score of 44% shows that long-term creativity is present, while her strategic environmental awareness (70%) and evenly distributed vision score (50% at each level) can provide direction.
The tactical score of 33% then raises a practical question: how does this affect her behaviour and functioning when an idea needs to be structured, tested and implemented with others? A strong idea may remain in the idea stage for longer, the creative direction may change quickly, or processing feedback within a joint process may require more effort. This should be explored using concrete examples from study, an internship or collaboration.
Other competencies offer ways to compensate for this tactical score. Her strong tactical communication skills (100%), initiative (100%) and decisiveness (86%) can help her express an idea clearly, organise a first step and document choices. A workable approach is to agree selection criteria in advance, involve one co-owner, schedule short feedback rounds and end every meeting with a decision and next step.
The Decision Maker learning style can provide a language for reflection to structure application and feedback, but it does not explain the scores. There is no convincing evidence that matching learning to a fixed learning style improves outcomes (Pashler et al., 2008). The Enthusiast and Helper profile types mainly offer useful reflection questions: what helps her pursue one opportunity for long enough, and how can she protect her own creative direction while actively involving others?
What this means for organisations
First define the creative behaviour the role requires: operational problem-solving within boundaries, tactical idea generation and selection, or a strategic innovation climate and portfolio choices. A single overall score conceals these differences.
Then assess problem framing, use of information, variation in alternatives, evaluation, feedback and feasibility. Use multiple observers and workplace situations, and distinguish individual behaviour from the influence of the team, resources and context.
A meta-analysis of seventy studies shows that training can improve creative performance, particularly when it addresses cognitive processes, rules for application and realistic exercises (Scott et al., 2004). Combine idea generation with problem definition, evaluation, prototyping and feedback.
Design the environment as well. Across 134 field studies and 35 student studies, autonomy-supportive leadership, task interdependence and goal interdependence were positively associated with team creativity and innovation (Byron et al., 2023). At LEGO Ideas, 10,000 supporters provide access to formal assessment of demand, brand fit, safety, build quality and feasibility. One review round assessed 54 ideas, while eleven fan creations were in development (LEGO Ideas, 2025). Idea pipelines therefore require criteria and ownership.
How Voice Your Future makes this competency visible
Voice Your Future distributes visible creative behaviour across operational, tactical and strategic levels. Connections with other competencies deepen the picture: judgement and analysis support evaluation, environmental awareness and vision provide direction, persuasiveness and collaboration help develop ideas, and initiative, decisiveness and commitment support implementation.
The profile starts the inquiry. Examples, feedback and workplace experiments show why behaviour does or does not become visible and which development fits the person, role and context.
The essence of creativity
Creativity views an issue differently and develops new, useful possibilities. Operationally, it opens up the situation; tactically, it connects ideas, knowledge and people; strategically, it builds the conditions for implementation. Impact emerges when divergent thinking is combined with judgement, professional knowledge, collaboration and perseverance. The central question is who can turn an unexpected possibility into lasting value.
References
Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., van der Sman, C., & Uysal, R. (2021). Creativity and well-being: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 738-751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.485
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779-806. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012815
Byron, K., Keem, S., Darden, T., Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2023). Building blocks of idea generation and implementation in teams: A meta-analysis of team design and team creativity and innovation. Personnel Psychology, 76, 249-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12501
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017868
Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., III, Mollick, E., Lifshitz, H., Kellogg, K. C., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2026). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of artificial intelligence on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Organization Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2025.21838
European Commission. (2026). European Innovation Scoreboard 2026. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/publications/all-publications/european-innovation-scoreboard-2026_en
Eurostat. (2025, December 11). 20% of EU enterprises use AI technologies. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251211-2
Eurostat. (2026a). Community Innovation Survey 2022: Key indicators. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Community_Innovation_Survey_2022_-_key_indicators
Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1134491
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837
LEGO Ideas. (2025, June 17). Announcing the selected product ideas from the third 2024 LEGO Ideas review. https://ideas.lego.com/blogs/a4ae09b6-0d4c-4307-9da8-3ee9f3d368d6/post/20ba2f7d-af61-4666-8324-0e2ce847d399
LinkedIn. (2024, September 3). LinkedIn data points out 2 simple ways to improve skills-based hiring. https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-acquisition/2-simple-ways-to-improve-skills-based-hiring
LinkedIn. (2025). The future of recruiting 2025. https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-acquisition/future-of-recruiting-2025
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001
Nieuwenhuis, M. A. (2010). The art of management 1: Strategie en structuur (10e druk). M. Nieuwenhuis. ISBN 978-90-806665-1-1.
OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative minds, creative schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Rietzschel, E. F., Ritter, S. M., & Baas, M. (2026). A systematic review of creativity evaluation and creativity selection measurement tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 20(1), 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000638
Government of the Netherlands. (2026, July 10). Nederland handhaaft top-3 positie in EU-lijst innovatielanden. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2026/07/10/nederland-handhaaft-top-3-positie-in-eu-lijst-innovatielanden
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/
