Call for Papers

A constraints-free environment with a supportive culture, abundant resources,  team diversity, or access to interlinked physical and virtual workspaces – is considered ideal for fostering innovation and creativity in organizations (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). However, as empirical evidence shows, the organizational reality is much more nuanced, and numerous constraints affect organizational innovation and individual or team creativity (Acar et al., 2019a). Constraints-free ideation may fail to meet real-world requirements, while organizations wisely facing numerous challenges often triumph against the odds (Khessina et al., 2018). Moreover, a moderate level of constraints may substantially contribute to innovative and creative processes and organizational success (Acar et al., 2019b; Barnett & Freeman, 2001).
 
Technological advances have opened up an avenue for constraints-free innovation and become central to organizational practice and theorizing (Bailey et al., 2019). Yet as we delve deeper into the technological landscape, we face a phenomenon where emerging technologies themselves introduce side-effects and constraints. Specifically, as organizations become increasingly reliant on digital tools, they may find themselves bounded by technologies meant to liberate their creative processes, such as the homogenization of ideas and approaches (Epstein et al., 2023).
 
Indeed, technologies such as generative AI can enhance human’s ability to be creative in some ways (e.g., novelty) but not in others (e.g., usefulness) (Harvey & Berry, 2023). While these technologies enhance creative capacities, they also may inadvertently limit idea generation to pre-existing patterns and results, potentially stifling truly innovative reasoning. Thus, data biases may skew creative thought, confining it within algorithmically determined boundaries (Zaitsava et al., 2022).
 
Moreover, human responses to technological advancements can create barriers to creativity and innovation. For instance, the escalating use of AI in producing organizational outputs, such as texts, reports, music, or social media content, not only raises concerns over being replaced by machines (Schmelzer, 2019) but also leads to biases in evaluation, often resulting in a preference for human-made over AI-generated creative works (Magni et al., 2024). This trend could limit creativity and innovation, as AI-generated works might be undervalued simply because of their non-human origin.
 
Additionally, uncertainty and technostress caused by the use of, or the inability to cope with new technologies, emerge as a significant constraint for creativity and innovation in organizations and lead to reduced cognitive flexibility essential for innovative thinking (Ayyagari et al., 2011). Yet, when managed effectively, technostress can also foster resilience and adaptability, serving as a unique driver for innovative problem-solving (Tarafdar et al., 2019). Furthermore, creative ways of dealing with uncertainty caused by new technologies may also result in positive outcomes for employees and organizations (Goštautaitė et al., 2023).
 
The dual nature of emerging technologies, which can either catalyze innovation and creativity or morph into a constraint (Volpentesta et al., 2023), calls for a more profound understanding of these constraints to transform them into foundations for sustainable innovation and organizational success. Therefore, this sub-theme is not just an academic inquiry but a bold challenge for reevaluating our understanding of constraints, urging us to embrace the duality of the new technological realm.
 
We welcome submissions from a range of theoretical and empirical approaches to discuss topics and questions that could include but are not limited to the following:

• How will technological constraints redefine the nature of innovation, and creativity in future organizational structures?

• What are organizational theories and practices to address the dual nature of technological constraints and their impact on innovation and creativity?

• What are strategies that transform technological constraints into catalysts for innovation?

• Under which conditions does technology act as both a facilitator and a barrier to creative processes, and what enables or influences this balance?

• Whether and how biases that arise as the response to human-technology interactions impact the perception and value of creativity and innovation.

• What is the impact of technostress on organizational creativity and innovation?

• What are the practices to transform technostress and AI aversion into positive forces for organizational change and creativity?

• What are strategies and practices to navigate constraints in an AI-dominated future?

• What are methods to break self-limiting technological cycles?

• What organizational shifts might occur as organizations increasingly view constraints not as barriers but as integral to the innovation and creative process?

References

• Acar, O.A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. (2019a): “Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review.” Journal of Management, 45 (1), 96–121.

• Acar, O., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. (2019b): “Why Constraints Are Good for Innovation.” Harvard Business Review, November 22, 2019.
• 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.
• Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011): “Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications.” MIS Quarterly, 35 (4), 831–858.
• Barnett, W.P., & Freeman, J. (2001): “Too much of a good thing? Product proliferation and organizational failure.” Organization Science, 12 (5), 539–558.
• Bailey, D., Faraj, S., Hinds, P., von Krogh, G., & Leonardi, P. (2019): “Special Issue of Organization Science: Emerging Technologies and Organizing.” Organization Science, 30 (3), 642–646.
• Goštautaitė, B., Liubertė, I., Parker, S.K., & Bučiūnienė, I. (2023): “Can You Outsmart the Robot? An Unexpected Path to Work Meaningfulness.” Academy of Management Discoveries, published online on August 14, 2023; https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2022.0113.
• Epstein, Z., Hertzmann, A., Investigators of Human Creativity, Akten, M., Farid, H., Fjeld, J., ... & Smith, A. (2023): “Art and the science of generative AI.” Science, 380 (6650), 1110–1111.
• Khessina, O.M., Goncalo, J.A., & Krause, V. (2018): “It’s time to sober up: The direct costs, side effects and long-term consequences of creativity and innovation.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 107–135.
• Magni, F., Park, J., & Chao, M.M. (2024): “Humans as Creativity Gatekeepers: Are We Biased Against AI Creativity?” Journal of Business and Psychology, 39, 643–656.
• Harvey, S., & Berry, J.W. (2023): “Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: How novelty and usefulness shape creativity.” Academy of Management Review, 48 (3), 504–529.
• Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C.L., & Stich, J.F. (2019): “The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research.” Information Systems Journal, 29 (1), 6–42.
• Schmelzer, R. (2019): “Should We Be Afraid of AI?” Forbes, October 31, 2019; https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/31/should-we-be-afraid-of-ai/.
• Volpentesta, T., Spahiu, E., & De Giovanni, P. (2023): “A survey on incumbent digital transformation: a paradoxical perspective and research agenda.” European Journal of Innovation Management, 26 (7), 478–501.
• Zaitsava, M., Marku, E., & Di Guardo, M.C. (2022): “Is data-driven decision-making driven only by data? When cognition meets data.” European Management Journal, 40 (5), 656–670.
•