4 Leading Creative Efforts

Common Functions and Common Skills

Michael D. Mumford, Colleen Durban, Yash Gujar, Julia Buck, and E. Michelle Todd

Introduction

For many years, we all believed creative work in firms did not need effective leadership (Mumford et al., 2002). In part, this view reflects the “value” placed on creativity in many firms (Dess & Pickens, 2000). In part, however, it reflects the distinct autonomy of creative people and their unwillingness to accept direction from others (Feist & Gorman, 1998). What has become clear in recent years, however, is that the long-term survival and success of firms depends on sustained innovation—the development and fielding of new products and services (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Innovation, however, ultimately depends on peoples’ skills in solving—producing original, high quality, and elegant solutions—the kind of novel, complex, ill-defined—or poorly structured—problems (Mumford & Gustafson, 2007) that call for creative thought.

To the surprise of many, Mumford et al. (2002), in a review of the available studies (e.g., Barnowe, 1975; Pelz & Andrews, 1966; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999), concluded effective leadership is strongly (r ≅ 0.40), related to the initiation and success of creative efforts in firms, proving positively related to invention disclosures, publications, schedule performance, budget performance, and market share (e.g., Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). The strong relationship between leader effectiveness and creative performance in firms has led to the proposal of a number of substantive models intended to describe how the effective leadership of creative efforts occurs, including product championing (Howell & Boies, 2004), leader climate definition (Isaksen, 2017; West & Sacramento, 2012), leader support for creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2011), leader management of team processes (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), leader authenticity (Černe, Jaklič, & Škerlavaj, 2013), and transformational leadership (Shin & Zhou, 2003), to mention a few.

One approach that appears to have some promise for understanding how leaders contribute to the success of creative efforts in firms may be found in the Functional Model of creative leadership proposed by Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford et al., in press; Mumford et al., in press; Mumford, Peterson, & Robledo, 2013; Robledo, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012). Indeed, this model appears capable of accounting for the performance of eminent scientific leaders (Vessey et al., 2014). In the present effort, we will examine the key functions held to be executed by those asked to lead creative efforts. Subsequently, we will examine some of the critical skills leaders of creative efforts must possess to execute these functions—skills such as causal analysis, constraint analysis, forecasting, and wisdom.

Functions

The Functional Model of creative leadership proposed by Mumford and his colleagues is based on five key assumptions. First, because creative problems are complex, novel, and ill defined (Mumford & Gustafson, 2007), leaders must induce structure on followers’ creative problem-solving efforts. Put differently, leaders must define and plan the work to be done (Hemlin, 2009). Second, work on creative projects is typically done by teams (Chen, Chang, & Hung, 2008). And leaders must structure team interactions in such a way as to promote creative work in teams (Carmeli & Paulus, 2015). Third, creative work in firms is costly, requiring acquisition of resources, both fiscal and personnel resources, with costs increasing as new ideas about products and services move from initial development to fielding (Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, 2008). Thus, leaders must acquire the resources needed to support creative work. Fourth, leaders play a key role both in providing feedback on project work and in helping team members deal with emergent crises or shifts in the demands posed by project work (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Farris, 1972). Fifth, and finally, as leaders address all these requirements, they must encourage learning on the part of the team, the firm, and the profession (Hitt, Ireland, & Lee, 2000).

Figure 4.1 presents the model describing the key functions to be executed by leaders of creative efforts as proposed by Mumford and colleagues (e.g., Mumford et al., in press; Mumford, Peterson, & Robledo, 2013). It should be noted that this model is domain general, applying to scientific fields as well as those in the arts. This model begins with the proposition that leaders scan the professional environment and the firm’s concerns to identify key themes worth exploring. Theme identification provides a basis for project creation, project planning, and definition of the mission to be given to project teams. Mission definition provides a basis for evaluation and feedback to followers, as well as ongoing monitoring of project work, which may lead to either reconfiguration of project work or fielding of the new product. Put somewhat more globally, this vector of leadership functions holds that leaders of creative efforts must lead the work.

To lead the work, however, leaders must have people to do the work. This observation implies leaders must recruit followers and establish the environment they must work in. Shared perceptions of the work environment (or climate) allows team members to interact effectively—a climate, in part, established by how leaders interact with followers. This vector of leadership functions, of course, implies leaders of creative efforts must lead the group, or team, doing the work.

Figure 4.1 Model of Critical Leadership Activities

Note: Figure drawn from Robledo, Peterson, and Mumford (2012) with permission.

To allow team members to do the work, however, requisite resources must be obtained from leaders of the firm. Not only must leaders establish the legitimacy of the creative efforts to obtain resources and support from top management, but also they must build support in other institutional units likely to be involved in the development and fielding of the new product or services—often recruiting members of these units based on the skills needed for product development. These within firm sales and educational activities become more critical as project work becomes more cross-functional in nature and proceeds to the fielding of the new product or service. This vector is leadership functions is noteworthy because it implies the leaders of creative efforts must also lead the firm.

Leading the Work

Although this model appears to provide a plausible description of the key functions to be executed by those asked to lead creative efforts, one might ask what evidence is available for each of these functions. Over the years, a number of scholars, scholars employing rather different methods in their studies, have provided evidence bearing on the relevance of these varied activities on the effective leadership of creative efforts. To begin, a number of studies have shown that leaders of creative efforts scan their environment to acquire relevant information (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Kickul & Gundry, 2001; Unsworth, 2001). In fact, these scanning activities may be rather broad, involving both scanning of the professional environment and scanning of the firm for problems encountered in routine operations. Thus, qualitative studies of new product development efforts have found not only that open, extensive scanning of both the profession and the firm is critical in the product development efforts but also that scanning was critical to definition of the key problems to be addressed in creative efforts.

Scanning—information gathering—has been shown to contribute to creative problem solving (Mumford et al., 1996). For the leaders of creative efforts, however, scanning of the professional and firm environment provides a basis for identifying the themes to be pursued in creative efforts. For example, in a study of scientists at DuPont, Hounshell (1992) found that sustained, consistent exploration of fundamental themes was critical to innovation. Similarly, Root-Bernstein, Bernstein, and Garnier (1995), in a study of scientific leaders (Nobel Prize winners), found that systematic, sustained work with respect to key themes was critical to creative achievement. Scanning is just as relevant in artistic contexts as in scientific contexts. For example, a painter scans and takes notice of the dimensions, the texture, the color, and the materials of a canvas, identifying themes for product development. Therefore, creative leadership is structured with respect to a limited set of key issues.

Theme identification, and the acquisition of expertise with respect to these themes, provides a basis for project creation and project planning—with project planning influencing both recruitment of staff and acquisition of resources. The importance of planning to effective leadership of creative efforts was examined in a study by Hemlin (2009). More specifically, Hemlin (2009) conducted a critical incident study where the creative efforts of 84 research and development groups in universities and biotechnology firms were examined. He found that leaders were unwilling to delegate project planning activities—viewing project planning as their critical duty. Additionally, it has been found that teams led by leaders with greater planning skills perform more successfully on creative problem-solving tasks (Marta, Leritz, & Mumford, 2005).

Planning is, of course, a complex activity involving identification and management of obstacles. In fact, Caughron and Mumford (2008) found, in another experimental study, that the identification and management of obstacles in planning was critical to the success of leaders’ creative problem-solving efforts. Plans, moreover, provide leaders with the basis for defining the mission to be given to the group. Hunter, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford (2007), in a meta-analytic study, found that definition of challenging professional missions was a noteworthy, positive influence on real-world creative accomplishment. In fact, Partlow, Medeiros, and Mumford (2015) have shown that effective articulation of viable missions is critical to performance on a creative problem-solving task requiring formation of a plan for leading an experimental secondary school.

Plans and missions are noteworthy because they provide a basis for appraising the work of followers. Farris (1972) has shown followers, followers working in research and development teams, actively seek feedback from leaders in initial definition of team assignments and after some work has been completed. In a study of idea evaluation, Lonergan, Scott, and Mumford (2004) presented undergraduates with ideas for marketing a new product—the 3-D holographic television. These ideas, ideas drawn from Redmond, Mumford, and Teach (1993), were of either established quality or established originality. Prior to reviewing these ideas, participants were asked to assume the role of a manager (the leader), review followers’ ideas and prepare for a final campaign—campaigns appraised for quality and originality. In addition, manipulations were made to encourage evaluation of these ideas with respect to operating efficiency and innovation standards. It was found that the most original and highest quality campaigns were obtained when high-quality ideas were appraised with respect to innovation standards and highly original ideas were appraised with respect to operating efficiency. Thus, leaders are active, expert participants in followers’ creative efforts seeking to compensate for deficiencies in their work. Indeed, other studies by Gibson and Mumford (2013) and Licuanan, Dailey, and Mumford (2007) have shown leaders must think, and think deeply, when evaluating others’ ideas.

When ideas “pass inspection” and implementation begins, new crises and new creative problems emerge (Gordon, 2017). As a result, leaders cannot simply evaluate and improve ideas—they must be actively involved in product development and fielding. Drazin, Glynn, and Kazanjian (1999) conducted a qualitative study on the development of a new aircraft. They found that leaders not only actively monitored project work but also played a key role in helping project teams address the crises that routinely emerge in creative efforts. The way these crises are addressed, however, provides a basis for organizational learning—learning facilitated by self-reflection (Strange & Mumford, 2005). As Isaksen (2017) has pointed out, however, it is important for leaders of creative efforts to both learn from failure and success.

Leading the People

Of course, leaders must have someone to lead. Most creative work, however, is done by professionals—professionals who have a strong sense of autonomy (Feist & Gorman, 1998). As a result, leaders of creative efforts must in a sense recruit team members. In a qualitative study of a new product development firm information technology, Kidder (1981) found that it is project leaders who are responsible for recruiting and retaining key staff. This finding is of some importance because it implies leaders must know the work, the professions, and the workforce, appraising potential worker skills with respect to the demands made by a project.

Although more research is needed on how leaders execute the recruitment function, three key points should be kept in mind. First, leaders may recruit people with different perspectives on issues to ensure productive technical conflict (Fay et al., 2006; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Second, in recruitment, leaders must anticipate how the project and project work could contribute to professional development and professional accomplishment (Zuckerman, 1977). Third, in recruiting team members, leaders must communicate project plans and missions in such a way that team members have a shared understanding, a shared mental model, of the nature of the work at hand (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). It is important to note that in some cases, in musical orchestras for example, it is the creative team that actually recruits the leader to lead the team. However, even in these cases, the leader must still perform the aforementioned recruitment functions to encourage productive conflict, professional development, and a shared understanding of the work.

Not only must leaders recruit team members with requisite skills, but also they must establish the procedures and processes by which team members will work together. Thus, Mitchell et al. (2015) found that leader inclusiveness, the leaders valuing different points of view, enhances the creative performance of teams in part by bringing technical issues to fore and in part by establishing a shared sense of identity. Other work indicates leaders should encourage participation by team members (Baer & Frese, 2003; Kerr & Murthy, 2004), ensure feelings of psychological safety among group members (Carmeli et al., 2014; Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, 2012), and establish contingencies and work conditions that encourage active collaboration, especially collaborative efforts that result in the elaboration of and refinement of ideas (Mathieu et al., 2008).

James, James, and Ashe (1990) argued that these, and other actions by leaders, are the key variables that shape peoples’ perceptions of their work environments, and more specifically, their perceptions of work climate. Over the years, a number of models have been proposed in attempts to account for the work climate leaders should establish to encourage creativity and innovation, with models being framed with respect to team interventions (West et al., 2003), the unique needs, or personalities, of creative people (Feist, 1999); the motives of creative people (Amabile et al., 1996); organizational resources (Abbey & Dickson, 1983); and requirements for new product development (Thamhain, 2003).

Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford (2005) reviewed the various models of creative climate that have been proposed. They identified 19 dimensions commonly proposed in models of creative climate: (1) positive peer group, (2) positive supervisor relations, (3) resources, (4) professional challenges, (5) mission clarity, (6) autonomy, (7) positive interpersonal exchange, (8) intellectual stimulation, (9) top management support, (10) reward orientation, (11) flexibility and risk-taking, (12) product emphasis, (13) participation, and (14) organizational integration. In a later study, Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford (2007) conducted a meta-analytic investigation to assess the impact of these climate variables on individual and team creative performance.

Although it was found that all of these attributes of peoples’ perceptions of their work environment were positively related to creativity, three climate dimensions produced especially strong effects: (1) positive interpersonal exchange (d = 0.91), (2) intellectual stimulation (d = 0.88), and 3) professionally challenging work (d = 0.85). These findings are, or course, consistent with earlier work showing that transformational leadership contributes to creativity (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1999). By the same token, they indicate leaders must establish a challenging, intellectually engaging work environment where peer support can be expected for work contributing to the mission. As Isaksen (2017) points out, involving others in goal setting, recognizing achievement, resolving technical conflict, discounting personal conflict, and encouraging team members to explore the implications of ideas are all leader behaviors that will give rise to these climate perceptions.

Of course, climate perceptions, in part, arise from leaders’ interactions with followers. Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) examined positive leader-follower exchange among research and development chemists. They found that both publications and invention disclosures are positively related to positive interactions between leaders and followers. These positive exchange relationships, however, appear most beneficial when the leader seeks to build feelings of creative self-efficacy among followers. Thus, Tierney and Farmer (2002) and Tierney and Farmer (2011) have shown that feelings of creative self-efficacy, feelings in part established through interactions with leaders, contribute to the creative accomplishments of followers.

Leading the Firm

What has long been clear is that creative efforts in firms require both financial support and legitimation (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996)—financial support and legitimation, which is provided by the support of top management teams. For example, Wang and Hsieh (2013), in a survey study, found that active engagement of a firm’s senior management in creative efforts was critical to the success of new product introductions. Additionally, in a qualitative study of the adoption of a new technology it was shown that engagement of top management, or policy agencies, was critical to the success of this technology ensuring not only requisite resources were available but also that other key stakeholders (e.g., customers) were aware of and supportive of the effort.

The need for resources and support implies that the leaders of creative efforts must be able to “sell” their projects to top management. In fact, a series of studies by Howell and Higgins (1990), Markham and Griffin (1998), and Markham and Smith (2017) all indicate that successful leaders of creative efforts are able to “sell” or champion creative efforts. In particular, Howell and Boies (2004) have provided us with some evidence about how leaders go about championing new projects. They interviewed 19 matched pairs of champions and non-champions involved in one of 29 new product development efforts. Interviews were content analyzed to assess knowledge, idea promotion, idea packing, and selling. They found that contextual knowledge (knowledge of firm strategy and operations) was a powerful influence on both the packaging of ideas and the selling of ideas to others. These findings suggest that to champion projects, leaders of creative efforts must have a real understanding of both the firm and/or profession—and, be able to explain how the project will contribute to advancing the firm’s strategy and achieving key goals of the firm.

Not only must the leaders of creative efforts be able to sell to top management, but also they must build support for the efforts among other vested stakeholders or units in the firm. Jelinek and Schoonhoven (1990) conducted a qualitative study of a failed new product development effort—chip marking of shipping containers. It was known the prototypic chip marker worked, and the project had top management support, yet it failed—largely because other relevant organizational units refused to support the effort. Thus, leaders of creative efforts not only must sell to top management, but also they must sell the project to other relevant organizational units. As Mumford et al. (in press), note, however, such “sales” efforts may be as much about educating other institutional units about the project “as sales” per se. And, if necessary, providing these units with the technical support needed to resolve problems in their functional area breached by the creative effort. In this sense, those asked to lead creative efforts must become teachers—teachers actively trying to help other units understand, and hopefully support, the creative effort. Note that the earlier discussion of leading the firm does not mean that leaders of creative efforts must actually lead the firm in terms of holding a top management position such as CEO. Rather, leaders of creative efforts must lead the firm in the sense that they must lead the firm to accept the creative idea or product put forth through championing and building firm support.

Leader outreach to other key constituencies in a firm is not simply a nice thing to do. Leaders in the course of these efforts themselves learn about the capabilities of these units and the staff working in these units. This knowledge may, in fact, prove crucial because as projects move from development to fielding new expertise and skills, often expertise and skills drawn from other organizational units, will be required. Accordingly, Keller (2001) and Thamhain (2003) have provided evidence indicating that cross-functional teaming, at least appropriately timed cross-functional teaming, contributes to successful new product introductions, as well as schedule and budget performance.

What should be recognized here, however, is the introduction of new expertise and skills, particularly skills drawn from different units, may prove disruptive to creative teams. Due to potential disruption, leaders must help these cross-functional team members understand, or make sense of, the creative effort at hand (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999). Leaders, moreover, must act to recognize the unique contributions of outsiders to the project and encourage recognition of their potential contributions by team members (Bird & Sherwin, 2005). Finally, leaders must manage group processes and climate, recognizing that introduction of “outside” perspectives often disrupts creative efforts (Friedrich & Mumford, 2009). As a result, leaders of creative efforts must lead efforts to import expertise into creative teams.

Skills

Although additional evidence bearing on Mumford and his colleagues’ (e.g., Mumford et al., in press; Mumford, Peterson, & Robledo, 2013; Robledo, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012) model of the key functions that must be executed by those asked to lead creative efforts is needed, the evidence available at this point (e.g., Vessey et al., 2014) does suggest this model is at least plausible. Functional models of this sort, however, are of interest not only because they describe key “work” activities but also because they point to the key capacities people need to execute these activities (Fleishman et al., 1991; Mumford et al., 2000). Accordingly, in the following section, we will briefly examine the implications of the model for the skills leaders must possess to lead creative efforts. A more extensive explanation of each of the following skills may be found in Mumford et al. (2017).

Creative Thinking Skills

With regard to the leadership of creative efforts, it has traditionally been thought that leaders of creative efforts do not themselves need to be especially creative. However, the model of functional leadership presented earlier suggests this assumption is not well founded. For example, how can someone seek to compensate for deficiencies in ideas—often a lack of originality—if they are not capable of creative thought (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004)? The available evidence indicates that leaders’ creative thinking skills are in fact critical to the effective leadership of creative efforts (Connelly et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 1998; Mumford, Medeiros, & Partlow, 2012; Mumford, Vessey, & Barrett, 2008). Although these skills develop over time as leaders acquire experience (Zaccaro et al., 2015), possession of creative thinking skills early in their careers has been found to be critical to career performance in leading creative efforts.

Forecasting Skill

Many of the functions specified in Mumford’s (e.g., Mumford et al., in press; Robledo, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012) model seem to require forecasting skill. For example, leaders must plan, and planning, or the mental simulation of future actions, is commonly held to require forecasting (Mumford, Mecca, & Watts, 2015; Mumford, Schultz, & Van Doorn, 2001). Leaders, moreover, must be able to envision (or forecast) the potential implications of the themes being perused (O’Connor, 1998). And, in providing evaluative feedback, leaders must anticipate both followers’ reactions and the impact of the feedback provided. Although forecasting was once discounted as a viable cognitive skill (Pant & Starbuck, 1990), more recent research indicates that leaders can make accurate forecasts and that more effective leaders forecast (Beeler et al., 2010; Byrne, Shipman, & Mumford, 2010; Dailey & Mumford, 2006; Shipman, Byrne, & Mumford, 2010). Although other examples of this might be cited, the foregoing observations seem sufficient to make our point: leadership of creative efforts requires forecasting skill.

Causal Analysis Skill

The model of creative leadership points to another skill likely to prove important to the leadership of creative efforts: causal analysis skill. In planning, leaders of creative efforts must not only identify critical causes that need to be controlled in the effort but also identify the causes of performance in a product or service that must be investigated further (Bird & Sherwin, 2005). Moreover, to identify viable projects, leaders must think about the causes of both good and poor product performance within a system. Causal analysis skill, however, is not simply a matter of leading the work. In championing ideas (or selling ideas) to top management, they must be able to demonstrate how a project would cause (or contribute to) a firm’s strategic objectives. And, in recruiting team members and establishing climate, they must anticipate the importance and significance of the key causes they have identified (Kidder, 1981). Some initial support pointing to the importance of causal analysis skills has been provided in Hester et al. (2012) and Marcy and Mumford (2007). Thus, there is reason to expect leader causal analysis skills would contribute to effective execution of many of the key functions to be executed by the leaders of creative efforts.

Constraint Analysis Skill

Traditionally, creative work, and presumably the leadership of creative efforts, was held to be inhibited by constraints. More recent work, however, indicates that creative thinking is enhanced as people seek to identify and “work around” or “work within” constraints (Haught, 2015; Haught-Tromp, 2017; Onarheim & Biskjaer, 2015; Stokes, 2009). For example, leaders who are better able to identify and work with monetary and task objective constraints have been shown to perform better on a creative problem-solving task (Medeiros, Partlow, & Mumford, 2014). This observation, in turn, suggests that constraint analysis skills might also be critical to the effective leadership of creative projects.

Wisdom

The functions that must be executed by those asked to lead creative efforts are not only complex but also require judgment. Leaders must know when and how to try to sell a creative effort to top management. They must be able to balance different points of view in conflict over technical approaches to the problems being addressed in a creative effort. They must also be able to appraise the impact of importing expertise, or technology, on team processes. All these requirements suggest that those asked to lead creative efforts must be wise (McKenna, Rooney, & Boal, 2009).

Wisdom, as a skill, has been defined in different ways by different investigators (Arlin, 1990; Orwell & Perlmutter, 1990; Sternberg, 1985, 1990). Despite these definitional differences, most agree wisdom involves appraising the merits of solutions in context. As a result, wisdom is held to require awareness of solution fit, systems perception, systems commitment, judgment under uncertainty, self-objectivity, and self-reflection (Zaccaro, Mumford et al., 2000). In fact, Zaccaro et al. (2000) have provided evidence indicating wisdom is related not only to leader performance but also to leader creative thinking. There is still much research on wisdom that needs to be done; however, recent research investigating attributes of wisdom (e.g., Mumford et al., 2000) points to wisdom being an important skill for leaders of creative efforts.

Conclusion

Before turning to the broader conclusions from the present effort, certain limitations should be noted. To begin, in the present effort we have focused only on one model describing the requirements for leading creative efforts—the Functional Model proposed by Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford et al., in press; Mumford, Peterson, & Robledo, 2013; Robledo, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012). Although this model appears to provide a viable, plausible basis for describing the key functions that must be executed by those asked to lead creative efforts, it should be recognized that this is only one model of how those asked to lead creative efforts actually lead. Moreover, it should be recognized that this model does not necessarily rule out, or compete with, other models such as transformational leadership (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1999) or leader-member exchange (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999) that have been used to account for the leadership of creative efforts. Positive leader-follower exchange, like transformational leadership, may contribute to execution of many of these key functions.

This Functional Model of the requirements for leading creative efforts is of interest because it points to the kind of skills leaders must acquire if they are to lead creative efforts effectively. In the present effort, based on the Functional Model, we identified five skills needed for the effective leadership of creative efforts: creative thinking skill, causal analysis skill, forecasting skill, constraint analysis skill, and wisdom. Indeed, evidence has been presented indicating that each of these skills influence peoples’ ability to solve creative leadership problems. Nonetheless, it should be recognized that this list of skills may not be exhaustive—other skills may well exist that influence leaders’ ability to solve creative problems and lead creative initiatives, such as networking skill (Mumford et al., in press). Moreover, it should be recognized that much of the research considered herein has examined experimental studies of leaders’ performance in solving creative problems. Thus, the question arises as to how these skills are applied in real-world settings where the leaders of creative efforts must interact with multiple teams and multiple team members to turn new ideas into viable products.

Finally, in the present effort, we have focused on the key functions and key skills needed by those asked to lead creative efforts. As a result, little has been said about what leaders must know (i.e., what kind of knowledge and experience must leaders possess) to execute these skills. This point is of some importance because prior research has shown effective execution of skills depends on the availability of substantial and well-structured knowledge (Mumford, Medeiros, & Partlow, 2012). And, clearly, experience and deliberative practice will contribute to the acquisition of this knowledge, as well as effective skill execution (Ericsson, 2009).

With this said, we believe the present effort has noteworthy conclusions. To begin, the work required of those asked to lead creative efforts is hard and exceptionally complex. Leaders of creative efforts must lead the work, they must lead the people doing the work, and they must lead the firm. Each of these three global functions is associated with a number of other complex activities. In leading the work, leaders must scan multiple sources, define viable work themes, formulate project plans, define team missions, evaluate followers’ products, respond adaptively to crises, and monitor team work activities. In leading the people doing the work, leaders must recruit team members, establish a work environment, and interact effectively with followers. In leading the firm, leaders must sell the project to top management, build support for the project among stakeholders in the firm, and import requisite expertise from relevant stakeholder groups. The multiple functions required of those asked to lead creative efforts, and the complex nature of all these functions, suggests that leading creative efforts may be one of the most—if not the most—demanding forms of leadership we see in firms.

At a substantive level, this observation is noteworthy for another reason. Each of these functions is of sufficient importance to understanding effective leadership of creative efforts that studies are warranted examining how each function contributes to effective leadership of creative efforts. Although many studies have examined leader-follower interactions (e.g., Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999), we need more work on how leaders go about recruiting team members. We need more work on how leaders plan creative work. We also need more work on how leaders build support for creative projects among other vested stakeholders in a firm. Additionally, we need more work on how leaders learn from both project success and project failure.

Not only have we historically underestimated the functional work demands made on the leaders of creative efforts, we also have underestimated exactly what is needed by the people leading these efforts. Put differently, we have assumed if you could lead elsewhere, then you could lead creative efforts. Our observations in the present effort clearly contradict this assumption. It is not enough for the leaders of creative efforts to be able to lead. The leaders themselves must be able to think creatively. Indeed, given that leaders of creative efforts must compensate for deficiencies in others’ work in evaluation (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004), the level of creative thinking skill required of those who prove successful in leading innovative programs may, in fact, be exceptional.

Unto itself, creative thinking skills on the part of leaders will not guarantee the success of a creative project. Leaders of creative efforts must also be able to analyze and act on both key causes and key constraints—often in real-time. They must be able to forecast the downstream implications of their actions. Additionally, they must be able to evaluate their options in a wise fashion. These skills indicate the leaders of creative efforts must be something more than just technically creative people—they must have the skills and experience that allow them to plan and act in a complex institutional system on projects where success, however valuable, is not assured.

The complex array of skills needed to lead creative efforts, however, points to a larger concern. We need to know more, far more, about how these skills develop and the type of developmental interventions (either assignments or educational training programs) most likely to prove of value in encouraging the development of these skills (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Evidence bearing on viable developmental interventions may with time provide a basis for formulating successful programs that will provide leaders with the skills needed to lead creative efforts and provide firms with viable new products and success. We hope the present effort provides an impetus for future work along these lines.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sam Hunter, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Rich Marcy, and Kelsey Mederios for their contributions to the present effort.