Relationship Between Managers’ Organizational Intelligence and their Personal Creativity

Shiraz Journal of System ManagementSpecial Issue 2014, 83-95

Relationship Between Managers’Organizational Intelligence and their

Personal Creativity

Akbar Jadidi Mohammadabadi∗Department of psychology & educational,

Payam Noor University,Iran

Abbas FerdosiDepartment of social science,

Payam Noor University, Tehran,Iran

Iman HakimiDepartment of management,

Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Ali Jabbari ZahirabadiPayam Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract. The present research aims to investigate relationship be-tween managers’ organizational intelligence (OI) and their personal cre-ativity in Kerman City. OI was defined based on Carl Albrecht the-ory in 7 dimensions: strategic vision, shared fate, appetite for change,spirit, alignment and congruence, knowledge deployment and perfor-mance pressure. After that, one main hypothesis and 7 subsidiary hy-potheses were designed. Statistical population of the research includedall managers of Kerman City (140 people). A census was conductedto collect data from all managers. Data collection instruments weretwo questionnaires: Albrecht’s OI questionnaire which contains 49ques-tions and Randsip’s creativity questionnaire which has 50 questions. Thequestionnaires were distributed among managers after their validity andreliability were verified. Descriptive and inferential statistics were usedto analyze data. Pearson and Spearman tests were used in inferentialstatistics. Results of the research showed that there is significant rela-tionship between managers’ OI and their creativity in Kerman City.

Keywords: Organizational intelligence (OI), Individual creativity, Man-agers.

Received: February 2014; Final Revision: July 2014∗Corresponding author

83

84 A. J. Mohammadabadi, A. Ferdosi, I. Hakimi, and A. J. Zahirabadi

1. Introduction

Intelligence has been an important topic in psychology for years and hasreceived a lot of attention due to its complexity and importance. In to-day’s world, challenges like globalization and rapid changes in technologyhave changed organizations environments and this has made intelligencean important field of study in organizational and management areas inaddition to psychology. Therefore, OI concept was formed. OI is a newconcept in organization and management literature. OI background canbe traced back into 1990s and it has its roots in knowledge managementand organizational learning theories.

However, it’s clear and direct introduction took place in 1992 in a pa-per titled: “OI and its importance as a product process”, conducted byMatsoda and presented in international conference on economy in Tokyo(Jafari and Feghhi, 2009). Matsoda and Albrecht presented definitionsof OI and believed that a combination of smart humans and machineryand educational instruments will fulfill their expectations (Mokhtaripourand Siyadat, 2010). Use of OI can increase competitiveness power of anorganization and differentiates it from other organizations. This solutionenables organizations to apply information to reach competitive advan-tage. OI is a solution for application of information and improvingsmartness in managers so that their decisions will be based upon reali-ties and understanding of the present and future changes (Khanzadeh,2010).

Increasing OI helps organizations with rapid analyzing of their en-vironmental information and stores the results to provide for decision-makers when necessary. This facilitates information and knowledge flowin organizations and increases effectiveness of decision-making processconsiderably (Gholami and Ghafouriyan and Manavipour, 2011). Thereare different viewpoints concerning OI and some of them are referredto in the following sentences. FromMatsoda’s point of view (as quotedfrom Jafari and Faghihi, 2009), OI is: complex, interactive and coor-dinating collections of human and machinery intelligence of an orga-nization. OI is a combination of all necessary skills in an organizationincluding adaptability to change, speed in responding, flexibility and

Relationship Between Managers’ Organizational ... 85

empowerment (schusk, 1996).Simic (2005) believes that OI is the general ability of an organiza-

tion for solving problems which concentrates on combination of techni-cal and human abilities for solving problems; liebowitz (1999) considersOI and knowledge management as the same and defines organizationalintelligence as an organization’s ability to manage knowledge (Faghihiet al, 2011). Choo (1995) believes that OI is the very learning pro-cess which includes development of behavior in order to use organiza-tional understanding and memory (Zarei; Hamidizadeh; and Rahbar,2008). Schwaninger (2009) defined OI as an organization’s ability to un-derstand and respond to its environment such that it can fulfill its goalsand commitments and attract beneficiaries’ satisfaction. Mc Master de-fines OI as an organization’s ability to collect information, innovate, andproduce knowledge and effective actions based on knowledge (Kimasi,Chit sazan and Fakher, 2011).

Ercetin (2010) defined OI as: it is utilization of potential abilities ofan organization in rapid and correct decision-making, attempt to learncontinuously, use of skills and creativity in unprecedented situationswhich helps the organization with adapting to changes (Tabarsa, Ab-dali and Hatami, 2011). From Albrecht’s point of view, OI means: “anorganization’s capacity to apply all employees’ thinking force and con-centrating that force on organizational mission” (Albrecht, 2003). CarlAlbrecht published a book titled “thinking power at work: OI in action”in 2002. He states that one of the functions of OI is prevention from col-lective short-sightedness. He believes that three elements: smart indi-viduals, smart teams and smart organizations comprise business success(TorabzadehKashi, 2010). From Carl Albrecht’s point of view (2003), OIconcept can be divided into 7 dimensions:

1.strategic vision: it means capability of creation, inference andstatement of the main goal of an organization. It refers to identificationof basic strategies of an organization which is accepted by all employeesand leaders can revise it in yearly meetings. Environmental opportuni-ties and threats are revised permanently (TorabzadehKashi, 2010).

2. Shared fate: a feeling to share a goal with other members of anorganization which leads to synergic attempt. In this dimension, em-


ployees consider themselves as effective elements of organization andmanagers use employees in programs, implementations and evaluations(TorabZadeh kasha, 2010). Key signs of shared fate include shared plansand results among employees, easy understanding of ideas, business,contribution and collaboration among employees, employees’ sense ofbelonging to an organization, employees’ sense of participation, employ-ees’ belief in success and continuous relationship between employees andorganization (Zahrayee and Rajabipour, 2011).

3. Appetite for change: it is adaption to changes and tendency toundergo changes in order to fulfill strategic vision. It is an opportunityfor shifting into another way of doing activities. Of course, appetite forchange must be directed at fulfilling organizational strategic vision (Al-vani, BeigiNia and HemmatiMohajer, 2012). Some organizational cul-tures are guided by their executive founder teams. In such cultures,performance, thinking and responses to environment are so coordinatedthat each kind of change and transformation indicates an illness or evenchaos (Albrecht, 2003).

4. Spirit: organizational psychologists consider it as an optionalattempt and additional energy of employees which is higher than thatof expected. Spirit shows a tendency to act beyond standards. In anorganization with low level of spirit employees only do their activi-ties while in an organization with a high level of spirit employees trymore than expected level and their energy is continuously increased(TorabzadehKashi, 2010).

5. Alignment and congruence: it means presence of clear regulationsand systems for individuals and groups. Key signs of alignment andcongruence include appropriate structure, support of policies for mis-sions, facilitation and improvement of information systems, delegationof power to lower levels of an organization and coordination of unit’smissions (Zahrayee and Rajayeepour, 2011).

6. knowledge deployment: effective use of knowledge, informationand data, and establishment of free flow of knowledge all over the orga-nization, balancing between information disclosure to key members andprotection of information (Alvani, and Beiginia and HemmatiMohajer,2012).


7. Performance pressure: each of the executives should have theirown executive position. Leaders can spread performance pressure con-cept and support it. However, this is effective when there are operationalnecessities for shared success (Albrecht, 2003).

Braynion (2004) believes that this helps the leaders with improvingorganizational and social norms and putting theories into action. Keyfactors of performance pressure include understanding expectations byemployees, managers’ relationships due to goals, solving executive prob-lems of employees by managers, non-promotion of weak managers, re-ceiving feedback from performances, employees’ sense of helpfulness andtheir promotion based on their competencies (Zahrayee and Rajayeepour, 2011). One of the main items which are necessary for the presentand future of organizations is attraction of creative employees.

Today, our society needs creative people more than every time andas social systems become more complex, this need becomes more cru-cial. Therefore, creativity is now a very important subject in organiza-tional behavior. This is important especially due to sensitivity of humaninteractions (Mir Kamali, 2007). Creativity has been always a complex,wide and mysterious concept. Creativity may be considered as the high-est level of human learning, the highest level of thinking and the finalproduct of human mind and thought (Momeni and Ojinejad, 2010). Cre-ativity is a concept which does not have a single clear nature and def-inition; but all definitions share factors like novelty, preciousness andcorrespondence (Tabarsa et al, 2010). Some definitions have focused onindividuals’ personality traits.

Gilford (1950) believes that creativity is a combination of abilitiesand characteristics which results in creative thinking (Hoseini, 2008). Med-nick (1962) believes that creativity is giving shape to imaginations in theform of new products; as the elements of the new product are more dis-similar, solving process will be more creative (Hoseini, 2008). Bazerman(1986) defined creativity as a cognitive process of forming an idea, con-cept, product, or new discovery (AghayeeFishani, 1998). Some otherdefinitions viewed creativity from creative product point of view. Bentli(as quoted from Dehghan, Ghafouri and Ashraf Ganjouyee, 2010) be-lieves that: “creativity is application of knowledge and skills in new


ways for achieving valuable results”. Vernon believes that creativity ispersonal ability in creating ideas, theories, insights and new objects andre-building sciences and other fields (Sam Khanian, 2002). Getzels andJackson (1962) reported that creativity is not clearly separated from in-telligence. This was obtained through empirical studies conducted on alarge number of students (Ranko, 2007).

Ezma et al (2012) conducted a research titled “use of IT and itsrelationship with OI”. They found that there is significant relationshipbetween use of IT and “tendency to change, use of knowledge and sharedvision”. Albrecht (2003) conducted a research titled “investigation of thestatus of OI in Australian managers”. OI point measured in their re-search was lower than average value while many managers thought theirOI point was greater than average. Ada (2008) showed that in-servicetraining has considerable influence on OI dimensions. Jamalzadeh, Gho-lami and Seif (2009) showed that dimensions of OI have significant andpositive relationship with organizational learning. General hypothesis ofthis research is: there is significant relationship between managers’ OIand their personal creativity in Kerman city.

2. Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses are also as follows:1. There is significant relationship between managers’ strategic vision

and their personal creativity in Kerman city.2. There is significant relationship between managers’ shared fate

and their personal creativity in Kerman city.3. There is significant relationship between managers’ appetite for

change and their personal creativity in Kerman city.4. There is significant relationship between managers’ spirit and their

personal creativity in Kerman city.5. There is significant relationship between managers’ alignment and

congruence and their personal creativity in Kerman city.6. There is significant relationship between managers’ knowledge de-

ployment and their personal creativity in Kerman city.


7. There is significant relationship between managers’ performancepressure and their personal creativity in Kerman city.

3. Research Methodology

The present research is a correlation and descriptive research. In thisresearch, statistical population included all male managers of Kermancity. 60 people were selected from district 1 and 80 people were se-lected from district 2. A census was conducted to collect data from allmembers of population because the number of population members wassmall. Data collection instrument was Albrecht’s OI questionnaire whichconsisted of 49 questions and it had a satisfactory reliability level. Con-tent validity was also investigated and verified. Torab Zadeh (2010)calculated a Cronbach’s value equal to 0.907. Rendsip’s reliability ques-tionnaire was also used. It has 50 questions. Mortazavi (2009) calculatedits reliability (0.853) and validity (0.92).

4. Findings

As it can be seen in table 1, 57 people have a high level of OI and 43people have an average level of OI. In general, individuals’ mean pointwas 3.71 and its median is 3.79. Comparison of the median and meanof managers’ OI reveals that managers’ OI is average but the scatteringof this OI level is lower than its concentration (mean) with a standarddeviation equal to 0.53.

Table 1: managers’ OI status

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


As it can be seen in table 2, managers’ personal creativity mean is 3.79and its median is 3.77. Comparison of the mean and median for thisvariable reveals that managers’ personal creativity level is average butthe scattering of this value is lower than its concentration (mean) witha standard deviation equal to 0.35.

Table 2: managers’ personal creativity status

Table 3 shows that the mean value is equal to 0.54 for strategic vision,0.56 for shared fate, 0.50 for appetite for change, 0.52 for spirit, 0.53for alignment and congruence, 0.51 for knowledge deployment and 0.52for performance pressure. Comparison of mean and median for thesedimensions reveals that OI level of managers is average but scattering ofthese values are lower than their concentrations (mean) with standarddeviations obtained.

Table 3: managers’ OI dimensions status

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Table 4: results of the analysis of relationship between OI andcreativity

Table 4 shows that P value (0.000) in both tests is smaller than signifi-cance level (0.05). Therefore, H0 is rejected and it can be said that thereis relationship between OI and personal creativity of managers. Becausecorrelation coefficient is positive (0.641), it can be said that the relation-ship is of increasing type. In other words, we expect managers’ creativityto increase as their OI increases.

Table 5: results of the analysis of relationship between OI dimensionsand creativity

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��














Table 5 shows that P values obtained for all variables are equal to (0.000)and this value is significant both in alpha=0.05 and alpha=0.01 levels. Ifwe assume that H0 rejects a hypothesis and H1 verifies a hypothesis, allOI dimensions have significant relationship with managers’ individualcreativity. Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to 0.396 for strategicvision, 0.611 for shared fate, and 0.535 for appetite for change, 0.506 foralignment and congruence, 0.572 for knowledge application, 0.480 forperformance pressure. Spearman correlation coefficient is equal to 0.432for strategic vision, 0.622 for shared fate, 0.552 for appetite for change,0.687 for spirit, 0.499 for alignment and congruence, 0.608 for knowledgedeployment and 0.470 for performance pressure.

5. Conclusion and Discussion

There is relationship between strategic vision and managers’ creativ-ity. Because the coefficient is positive, relationship is of increasing type. Inother words, we expect managers’ personal creativity to increase asstrategic vision increases.

Selection of successful strategies and improvement of managers’ cre-ativity and abilities is important and managers should be creative inorder to determine organizational strategies and goals. Relationship be-tween shared fate and managers’ creativity was also significant. Further,this correlation was direct and positive and creativity increases as sharedfate increases. There was a significant relationship between appetite forchange and managers’ creativity.

As the coefficient is positive, the relationship is of increasing type. Inother words, we expect managers’ creativity to increase as their appetitefor change increases. There is also a positive relationship between spiritand creativity and we expect managers’ personal creativity to increaseas their spirit increases. There is a relationship between alignment andcongruence and the relationship is of increasing type because the corre-lation coefficient is positive.

In other words, we expect managers’ creativity to increase as man-agers’ alignment and congruence increases. There is relationship betweenknowledge deployment and managers’ creativity. Because the correlation


coefficient is positive, the relationship is increasing.In other words, we expect managers’ creativity to increase as their

knowledge deployment increases. Creativity is an attribute which needsto be trained and improved and this necessitates deployment of up-to-date and specialized knowledge; Joze (2008) believes that one of thefactors influencing on creativity is “administration of organizations ina way that they have a more diverse knowledge”. Kil Govar’s researchresults (2007) verify the influence of specialized knowledge and knowl-edge of creative techniques on creativity improvement. There is alsoa significant relationship between performance pressure and managers’creativity. The relationship is increasing because correlation coefficientis positive. In other words, we expect managers’ creativity to increaseas their performance pressure increases. Creativity and intelligence aretwo characteristics which are embedded in organization members. MarAnglin believes that OI is the social result of individual intelligence andit originates from mind like creativity. Therefore, these two variables’relationship can be attributed to their origin. OI involves a wide rangeof managerial activities concerning creativity and innovation, organiza-tional development and strategies and results in making economy in timeand resources. In an organization which acts smartly and makes much ofindividuals’ mental capacity, new ideas will increase and this contributesto organizational success. On the other hand, creative managers supportand provide necessary infrastructure for creativity expression.

References

[1] AghayeeFishani, T. (1998), Creativity and innovation in humans and or-ganizations. Tehran: Termeh.

[2] Alvani, M., Beiginia, A. R., and HemmatiMohajer, S. (2012), Investiga-tion of relationship between organizational structure and organizationalintelligence. Management and Human Resources in Petroleum IndustryQuarterly, 11, 25-54.

[3] Albrecht. K. (2003), “Organizational intelligence & knowledge Manage-ment”, Australian institute management.


[4] Azma, F. and Mostafapour, M. A. (2012), the application of informationtechnology and its relationship with organizational intelligence. Journalof Procedia Technology, 1, 94-97.

[5] Braynion, P. (2004), Power & leadership. Journal of Organization Powerwith Graduate Supervises in Speech language Patology. Jurnal of Com-municate Disorders. 32, 351-368.

[6] Dollinger, S. J. (2007), Creativity and Conservatism. Personality and In-dividual Differences, 43.

[7] Dehghan, A., Ghafouri, F., and Ashraf Ganjouyee, F. (2010), Relationshipbetween organizational culture and of physical education managers andtheir creativity: journal of motor sciences and sport, 15, 72-81.

[8] Faghihi, A. R., Mousavipour, S., Darreh, I., and Dousti, E. (2011), Rela-tionship between OI and occupational burnout. Quarterly of novelties ofindustrial/organizational psychology, 7, 71-85.

[9] Hoseini, A. (2008), Nature of creativity and methods of improving it.Mashhad: BehNashr.

[10] Jafari, p. and Faghihi, A. R. (2009), Level of OI in Organization of Ed-ucational Research and Planning.Knowledge and research in educationalsciences, 66, 23-45.

[11] Jamalzadeh, M., Gholami, Y., and HasanSeif, M. (2009), Investigation ofrelationship between OI and organizational learning in employees and fac-ulty members of Islamic Azad University (district 1) and development of amodel for promotion of organizational learning. Educational managementand leadership quarterly, Garmsar Islamic Azad University, 2, 63-86.

[12] Khan Zadeh, H. (2010), OI. Journal of computer world:www.developercenter.ir

[13] Kimasi, M., Chit Sazan, H., and Fakher, I. (2011), OI, a comparativeinvestigation in private and public banks. Business management, 9, 131-146.

[14] Kristina, J. and Audrone, K. (2006), Determinants of Employee Creativ-ity: A Survey of Lithuanian Nonprofit Organizations. International Soci-ety for Third-Sector Research and the Johns Hopkins University. Voluntas,17, 133-141.


[15] Liebowitz, J. (1999), Building organizational intelligence knowledge Man-agement primer. CRC press. Boca Paton London, New York, Washington.

[16] Mokhtaripour, M., and Siyadat, A. (2010), Management and leadershipwith OI. Management, 155-156.

[17] Momeni, H. and Ojinejad, A. R. (2010), Influence of application of inno-vation education model on improvement of students’ creativity in compo-sition lesson. Journal of research in curriculum, 1, 81-92.

[18] Mir Kamali, S. M. (2007), Educational leadership and management.Tehran: Yastaroun Publications.

[19] Nasabi, N. S. (2007), Relationship between OI and employees’ creativityin Shiraz Medical sciences University, accessible at: www.civilica.com.

[20] Runco, A. (2007), Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, Develop-ment, and Practice. USA. Elsevier academic press.

[21] Schusk, G. (1996), “Intelligent Technology for the High?tech Workplace”,in “How Organizations Learn”, (Edited by Ken Starkey), InternationalThompson Business Press, London.

[22] Schwaninger, M. (2009), “Intelligent Organization: Powerful Models forSystemic Management”, Institute of Management, Second Edition, Hei-delberg: Springer.

[23] Sam Khaniyan, M. R. (2002), Creativity and innovation in educationalmanagement and organization. (By means of cooperation of RamadanJahaniyan and Ahmad Mortezaee). Tehran: EspandHonar.

[24] Tabarsa, Gh. A., Abdali, R., and Sakineh, H. (2011), Promotion of cre-ating organizational knowledge: explanation of the role of OI and organi-zational learning. Management studies, 3.

[25] TorabZadehKashi, M. (2010), OI in PlascoKarSaipa Co. using A; Brecht’s7-dimensional model. Master Degree thesis, Tehran University.

[26] ZareiMatin, H., HamidiZadeh, A., and Rahbar, H. (2008), Presentationof an adjusted quantitative framework for evaluation of OI. Managementculture, 18, 51-78.

[27] Zahrayee, M. and Rajayee Pour, S. (2011), Investigation of OI in IsfahanUniversities in 2009-2010 academic year. Scientific-research journal of anew solution in educational management, 2, 155-174.

Documents

Relationship Between Managers’ Organizational Intelligence and their Personal Creativity