1. science
2. medicine
3. psychology and psychiatry

International Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Available online at http://www.ijmhsjournal.com
ISSN 2322-424X©2015
Investigating the Influence of Organizational Intelligence on
Organizational Creativity: Case Study of Four Iranian Manufacturing
Firms
Sayed Mahdi Golestan Hashemi‫‏‬, Akbar Nilipour Tabatabaei, Abbas Rafiei, and Mojtaba Norozi
Chegani
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is the investigation of the role of organizational intelligence
on organizational creativity of four manufacturing firms in Fars and Isfahan provinces in Iran.
The study is descriptive and correlational which was carried out during the first eight months
of year 2014. The statistical population is all personnel of four manufacturing firms whose
number exceeded 1407. Through random sampling, a sample of 250 persons was selected for
the purpose of data collection. To collect the data related to organizational intelligence,
Albrecht’s (2003) questionnaire was used and for organizational creativity data collection, a
questionnaire developed by the researchers was used. Cronbach's alphas of the
questionnaires were .87 and .76 respectively which are suitable. Few studies have been
carried out on organizational intelligence and organizational creativity and nearly no study
has been done on manufacturing firms. To investigate the relations between the variables of
the study and to test the hypotheses, Structural Equation Modeling was used and the
analysis was done through SPSS22 and Lisrel 8.5 the indices of total model fitness were
suitable and the fitted model is dependable. The results of the study indicated that
organizational intelligence has a positive and significant effect on organizational creativity
and organizational intelligence can explain 65% changes in organizational creativity which is
a significant value.
Key Words: Creative Problem Solving, Factor Loading, Organizational Creativity, Organizational
Intelligence, Structural Equation Modeling
Introduction
Increasing global competition, coupled with rapidly changing technology leading to the reduction in life
cycle of products has made corporations more vulnerable to failure than any time in past (Khorshidi et al,
2013). In today’s business environment, one of the essential elements to an organizational success is
adaptability which states that people must be able to accept changes as the basis to have creativity and
innovation (Khorshidi et al, 2013). Therefore, creativity and innovation are considered to be key factors for
survival, success and excellence of organizations (Cook, 1998). Creativity is generally of three types,
namely, individual creativity, group/team creativity and organizational creativity. The focus of the present
study is on organizational creativity. Organizational creativity is the creation of valuable and useful new
products, services, ideas, procedures, or processes by individuals working together in a complex social
system (Woodman et al, 1993).
The organizational literature holds numerous statements on the necessity of organizational creativity.
Gaining a competitive edge (Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Mumford et al, 2002; Tierney et al, 1999 ; Hu et
al 2012; Lin and Liu, 2012; Beheshtifar and Kamanifard, 2013) and ultimately surviving in today’s market
(West et al ,2004; Hu et al 2012; Lin and Liu, 2012; Beheshtifar and Kamanifard, 2013) are the main
rationale behind these statements.
Moreover, organizational intelligence is a basic and essential issue considering innovation and creativity
in an organization (Pour Kiani et al, 2013). This type of intelligence has been attended to as a new concept
in the field of management and organization; furthermore, it has an increasing prominence as a theoretical
concept in organization theory. Organizational intelligence denotes the capacity of an organization to
mobilize all of its brain power, and focus that brain power on achieving its mission (Albrecht, 2003).
Individual intelligence is intrinsic while organizational intelligence can be acquired (Lefter et al, 2008). In
conclusion, organizations that can successfully utilize organizational intelligence are the ones that use
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
human resources the best, create rational plans to reach aims explore the hidden potentials, have an
integrated and systemic organizational thinking and help the development of organization (Erçetin, 2000).
Furthermore, Improvements in organizational intelligence should support building more cost-effective
coordination, improved decision-making and innovation, and improved business performance to enhance
long-term prospects of organization (Veryard, 2012).
Despite the importance of organizational creativity and the influence of organizational intelligence, few
quantitative studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of organizational intelligence on
organizational creativity. Referring to the abovementioned points, the present study is an attempt to find the
effect of organizational intelligence on organizational creativity of four medium-sized and large Iranian
manufacturing firms.
Literature Review
Organizational Intelligence
The first person to venture into the subject of organizational intelligence was the American sociologist
Harold Wilensky who published a book on this subject in 1967(Veryard, 2012). However, the subject of
Organizational intelligence has been clearly and distinctly introduced by Matsuda (1992) in an article entitled,
“organizational intelligence and its importance as a process and a product” (Pour Kiani et al, 2013).
There has recently been no census among scholars on the definition of organizational intelligence since
the proposed definitions have looked at the issue from different perspectives. Table 1 presents the key
points of some of the proposed definitions for organizational intelligence.
Table 1. Organizational Intelligence Definitions
Organizational Definition Key Points
Complex, interactive, cumulative and coordinating collections of human and machine
1
Matsuda, 1992
intelligence of an organization as a whole
Operations related to information processing leading to compatibility with
2
Glain, 1996
environmental demands, initiating and implementing innovations
Capacity of a corporation as a whole to gather information, to innovate, to generate
3
McMaster, 1996
knowledge, and to act effectively based on the generated knowledge
Capacity of an organization to create knowledge and to use it strategically to adapt to
4
Halal, 1997
environment and business facility
all intelligences used to make a common viewpoint or a renovation process
5
Lie bowitz, 1999
(examination) which leads the whole system
Capacity of an organization to mobilize all of its brain power and focus that brain
6
Albrecht, 2003
power on achieving the mission
7
Simic, 2005
Intellectual capability of an organization in solving organizational problems
Capability of an organization in creating knowledge and its application to make
8
Piri, 2006
strategic decisions
A multidimensional and multifaceted concept involving the recursive interplay of
9 Akgun et al, 2007
cognitive, behavioral and emotional capabilities of organizations
Intellectual capability of an entire organization which can be improved in many ways,
10
Jung , 2009
for example, through adopting new technology, policy enhancement and investment
Using the potential to make quick and right decisions against sudden and
Erçetin, 2000,
unexpected situations that happen if system changes or improves, adapting to these
11
2001, 2009
changes, trying to learn permanently, using creativity and showing different skills
Jonbeshi et al,
Capability to collect, manage and use information to make effective and efficient
12
2012
decisions
No
Researcher
In the present study, organizational intelligence is defined as the capability of an organization in
processing information, producing and applying new knowledge, permanent learning to bring innovations
and making applicable, practical and effective decisions to adapt to environmental conditions.The related
literature reviewed confirms that different models have been proposed by different researchers to clarify and
explain the concept of organizational intelligence the most important of which are (Veryard, 2012; Kazemi et
al, 2012; Potas et al, 2010; Albrecht, 2003; Perkin, 2003; Matsuda, 1992) compared in Table 2. As it can be
seen, Albrecht’s (2003) model is the most comprehensive; furthermore, besides having the features of other
models, it is statistically measurable. It is worth mentioning that models proposed by Pour Kiani et al, (2013)
and Veryard (2012) have paid special attention to knowledge, information and communication and Potas et
al, (2010) model has more focus on appetite for change. Kazemi et al, (2012) model has specifically
attended to organizational structure, alignment and congruence. Considering the results of models'
comparison, the present study adopt Albrecht’s (2003) model as the basis for measuring, interpreting and
4457
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
elaborating the concept of organizational intelligence. Many other researchers (e.g. Ranjbarian and
Esgandari, 2014; Ahmadinejad et al, 2014; Sohrabi et al,2013; ,Eshkaftaki et al, 2013; Moghadam et al,
2013; Khanghahi and Jafari, 2013; Azma et al, 2012; Shahabi et al, 2012; Jonbeshi et al, 2012) adopted
Albrecht’s (2003) model to measure and elaborate organizational intelligence.
Albrecht in his book named "The power of mind at work" presented an organizational intelligence model
composed of seven elements as follows:
 Strategic Vision: strategic vision refers to the capacity to create, evolve, and express the purpose of the
enterprise (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009). This means a feasible plan for leading an organization towards
its main goals (Kordestani et al, 2013).
 Shared Fate: When all or most of the people involved in the enterprise, including associated stakeholders
like key suppliers and business partners, and in some cases even the families of its members, know what
the mission is, have a sense of common purpose, and understand their individual parts in the algebra of its
success, they can act synergistically to achieve the vision, this sense that "We are all in the same boat"
creates a powerful sense of community. Without a sense of shared fate, the psychological tone of the
culture degenerates into a "Look out for number one" spirit (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
 Appetite for Change: In smart organization, change represents challenge, opportunity for new and exciting
experiences, and a chance to tackle something new. People in these environments see the need to
reinvent the business model as a welcome and stimulating challenge, and a chance to learn new ways of
succeeding (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
 Heart: The element of heart involves the willingness to give more than the standard. Organizational
psychologists refer to discretionary effort as the amount of energy the members of the organization
contribute over and above the level they have "contracted" to provide (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
 Alignment and Congruence: Any group of more than a dozen people will start bumping into one another
without a set of rules to operate by. They must organize themselves for the mission, divide up jobs and
responsibilities, and work out a set of rules for interacting with one another and for dealing with the
environment. In the intelligent organization the system, broadly defined, all come together to enable the
people to achieve the mission (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
 Knowledge Deployment: More and more these days, enterprises succeed or fail based on the effective use
of knowledge, information and data. Knowledge deployment deals with the capacity of culture to make use
of its valuable intellectual and informational resources. Organizational intelligence must include free flow of
knowledge throughout culture and careful balance between conservation of sensitive information and the
availability of information at key points of need. It must also include support and encouragement for new
ideas, new inventions and an open-minded questioning of the status quo (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
4458
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Strategic
Vision
Shared Fate
Matsuda, Organizati
1992
onal
recognition
Perkin,
2003
Albrecht
,2003
Strategic
Vision
Potas et
al,2010
Being
intuitive
and farsighted
Kazemi et structural
al,2012 dimension
strategic
dimension
Veryard,
2012
4459
Decition
Action
Table 2. Comparison of Different Models of Organizational Intelligence
Appetite for
Heart
Alignment and
Knowledge Deployment
Change
Congruence
Organizational
learning
Organizational
communications
Conversations
Written
Communication
Listening
Symbolic
Conduct
Shared Fate
Appetite for
Change
Adaptation to
changes
Renewal
Actions and
reactions Agility
Communication
with stakeholders
Cultural
dimension
Cultural
dimension
Environmental
dimension
Communication
and
collaboration
Sense-making
Performance
pressure
Organizational learning Organizational memory
Organizational
Organizational learning
communications
Organizational
Organizational
communications
intelligence as a product
Heart
Conversations
Symbolic Conduct
Written Communication
Knowledge Processing
Alignment and
Congruence
Knowledge Deployment
Being flexible and
convenient in operation
Communication with the
stakeholders
The
The structural dimension
behavioral The functional dimension
dimension The communicational
dimension
The informational
dimension
The Environmental
dimension
Decition Action
power of
Organizational
imagination policy about
and creativity
problem
Organizational
policy about
problem
Performance
pressure
Renewal
Actions and
power of
Being intuitive and far- reactions Agility imagination
sighted
Communication and creativity
with
stakeholders
The communicational
dimension
The informational
dimension
Information gathering
Knowledge and memory
Learning and
development
behavioral
dimension
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
 Performance pressure: It's not enough for executives and managers to be preoccupied with the
performance of the enterprise. In the intelligent organization, everyone owns the performance proposition,
the sense of what has to be achieved and the belief in the validity of its aims. Leaders can promote and
support a sense of performance pressure, but it has the most impact when it is accepted by all members of
organization as a self-imposed set of mutual expectations and an operational imperative for shared
success (Nasabi and Safarpour, 2009).
Organizational Creativity
Creativity is one of the essential and vital characteristics of humans which has an undeniable effect on
human perfection and civilization; furthermore, this is the foundation for inventions and scientific and artistic
achievements. Despite the long history of creativity in human life, tremendous pace of technological
changes, global competition and economic uncertainty have made the organization realize that
organizational creativity is one of the key and permanent resources of having a competitive and survival
advantage.
There are various definitions of organizational creativity. However, the outcomes of organizational
creativity should be new and useful, i.e. be valuable to the organization (Isaksen and Ekvall, 2010). Styhre
and Sundgren (2005,p.4) defined organizational creativity as the “a variety of activities in which new ideas
and new ways of solving problems emerge through a collaborative effort by promoting dialogues that involve
multiple domains of scientific knowledge to produce value for the organization’s mission and market”. Fisher
and Amabile (2009) defined organizational creativity as the production of ideas for novel and appropriate
(useful or valuable) products, services, processes or strategies in an organization. Hu et al (2012) defined
organizational innovation as the whole process through which an organization integrates external and
internal resources, conceives, proposes, screens, adopts, and finally implements ideas, products, services,
procedures, and processes that are novel and useful to the organization. Bratnicka et al (2013) defined
organizational creativity as firm's ability to generate new and useful ideas, to address rapidly changing
opportunities and threats by making timely and market – oriented decisions and to frame breakthrough
changes in its resource basis.
Organizational creativity, in the present study, is defined as generating new, valuable and useful ideas
applied by the personnel in an organization to resolve problems through joint efforts and making timely and
market-based decisions in line with the available resources. Components of organizational creativity,
supporting researches and index of measuring components, are presented in Table 3. It is worth mentioning
that this table is the basis for the development of organizational creativity questionnaire.
Table 3. Measurement Index and Supporting Research Related to Organizational Creativity Components
Organizational
Index of Component’s
Supporting Research
Creativity Components
Measurement
Woodman et al,1993; Amabile,1997; Drazin et al,1999;
Number of new ideas
Styhre and Sundgren,2005; Sadi and Al-Dubaisi,2007;
of personnel
Number of ideas
Hunter et al, 2007; Fisher and Amabile, 2009; Maimone
and Sinclair,2010; Hu et al, 2012
Woodman et al, 1993; Amabile, 1997; Drazin et al,
Usefulness of ideas
1999; Styhre and Sundgren, 2005; Sadi and Al-Dubaisi,
2007; Fisher and Amabile, 2009; Hu et al, 2012
Rate of usefulness of
ideas
Alignment of idea with aim
Woodman et al, 1993; Amabile, 1997; Drazin et al,
1999; Styhre and Sundgren, 2005; Hunter et al, 2007;
Fisher and Amabile, 2009; Maimone and Sinclair, 2010;
Hu et al ,2012; Khorshidi et al, 2013
Woodman et al,1993; Amabile, 1997; Drazin et al,1999;
Number of creative problem Mathisen and Einarsen, 2004; Styhre and Sundgren,
solving
2005; Hunter et al, 2007; Mostafa and El-Masry, 2008;
Fisher and Amabile, 2009; Maimone and Sinclair, 2010;
Beheshtifar and kamani fard, 2013
Novelty of ideas
Number of creative
problem solving
4460
Woodman et al,1993; Amabile,1997; Drazin et al,1999;
Hunter et al,2007; Maimone and Sinclair, 2010;
khorshidi et al, 2013
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Organizational Intelligence and Organizational Creativity
Few studies have been carried out to investigate the relation between organizational intelligence and
organizational creativity. This part is to investigate studies dealing with the relation between organizational
intelligence and organizational creativity.
Pour Kiani et al, (2013) state that organizational intelligence has four results for an organization, namely,
improving organizational performance, competitive advantage, efficiency and innovation. To explain
innovation, Pour Kiani et al (2013) mention that one of the key results of organizational intelligence is being
inventive (creative) and making creative solutions and claim that it can be said that the chance of the
occurrence of new ideas in the organization will be increased if it acts intelligently and uses its personnel’s
intellectual and mental capacities in its best way.Mehara et al, (2012) in an article on the relation between
organizational intelligence and creativity of managers in public junior high schools of East of Gilan province
concluded that there is a positive and meaningful relation between creativity and organization intelligence.
Nasabee (2009) investigated the relation between organizational intelligence and personnel creativity in
Shiraz University of Medical Science. The statistical universe was 280 of personnel in 3 levels (managerial,
expertise, personnel) selected through stratified random sampling. Findings showed a statistically significant
relation between organizational intelligence and creativity; in other words, any increase or decrease in
organizational intelligence indexes equally changes those of creativity. Dayan (2006) studied the moderating
effect of market turbulence on organizational intelligence. The population of study was product managers of
electrical/electronic, computer, pharmaceutical, chemical, and machinery/metal manufacturing companies.
The result of the study indicated that team intelligent has a significantly positive effect on product creativity.
The rest of this part will be devoted to investigation of indirect relation between organizational intelligence
and organizational creativity. Through the inductive analysis of these studies, it can be argued that
organizational intelligence has a significant meaningful effect on organizational creativity. Mooghali and Azizi
(2008) investigated the relation between organizational intelligence and organizational knowledge
management development. The results indicated a statistically significant relation between organizational
intelligence and organizational knowledge management. Marjani and Arabi (2011) investigated the role of
organizational intelligence in organizational knowledge management. Their research population included all
staff (644 people) in economic department of the Central Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran. The findings
showed a positive and significant relationship between organizational intelligence (and all its components)
and knowledge management (and all its components).Sung and Choi (2012) examined the effects of team
knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams across 35
branches of a Korean insurance company. Data were collected from 65 sales teams. The findings denoted
team knowledge utilization was positively related to team creativity; in contrast, stocking team knowledge
was not a significant predictor of team creativity.
Considering the points mentioned, the hypothesis of present study is that organizational intelligence has a
significant and positive effect on organizational creativity. Figure 1 presents the proposed model for this
study.
Strategic Vision
Shared Fate
Number of new
Appetite for
ideas of personnel
Change
Heart
Organizational
Intelligence
Organizational
creativity
Alignment and
problem solving
Knowledge
Deployment
pressure
4461
of ideas
Number of creative
Congruence
Performance
Rate of usefulness
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Research
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Methodology
The present study is descriptive, Matrix Analysis. The purpose in correlational research is to determine if
there is any relationship among two or more variables and if it exists, to what extent it is. Correlation Matrix
(Covariance) Analysis is a type of correlational study to investigate the set of bivariate correlations among
variables.
Statistical population, sample size and sampling method
The statistical population of this research is all personnel in four manufacturing firms in Isfahan and
Shiraz, Iran, in 2014. Of these four firms, one was involved in producing refinery tools and parts, the other
was producing plastic materials and the last two were food production firms. The total number of personnel
was more than 1407 at the time of sampling. From among this population, a sample of 250 personnel was
selected through random sampling.
Instruments
Questionnaires were used to collect data. In order to measure organizational intelligence, a revised
version of Albrecht’s (2003) questionnaire including 28 questions was used. In order to measure
organizational creativity a five item questionnaire was developed by the researchers. Responses were
scaled through a five-point Likert scale. Face validity of the instrument was approved by experts;
furthermore, to determine the reliability of questionnaires, a preliminary study was conducted on 25 samples
from the same statistical population. Reliability of both questionnaires was measured by Cronbach's alpha
which was .86 for organizational intelligence questionnaire and .78 for organizational creativity questionnaire.
Moreover, the final Cronbach's alpha for organizational intelligence questionnaire and organizational
creativity questionnaire were .87 and .76 respectively. Then, a confirmatory factor analysis was run through
Lisrel. Convergent and discriminant validities were used to assure validity. Questionnaires were manually
distributed among participants. 184 persons (74%) filled in and returned questionnaires.
Data Analysis Method
Data were analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling which is a combination of Confirmatory Factor
Analysis, Path Analysis and Multiple Regression. Structural Equation Modeling has two applications. The
first one is Confirmatory Factor Analysis which investigates the relation among latent variables and their
related questions. The second one is the relation among latent variables and testing hypotheses. Structural
Equation Modeling is a system whose input is model and data. Fit Indices and parameters’ estimation are its
output.
Data Analysis
The hypothesis for the present study is that organizational intelligence has a positive and significant effect
on organizational creativity. To confirm or reject this hypothesis and find the relation among variables,
SPSS22 and Lisrel8.5 were used.
First, correlation coefficients or factorial loads among latent and manifest variables will be investigated.
Figure 2 is the output of Lisrel in Standard Solution mode which represents the relation between the concept
of organizational intelligence and its dimensions. As it can be seen in this figure, all factorial loads are above
.5; moreover, the average of the extracted variance is .51 for organizational intelligence. The result of
investigating convergent validity and discriminant validity indicated that the latent variable was valid and
factors can explain the concept of organizational intelligence well. Figure 3 is the output in T-Values mode
which deals with the significance of relations. Values which are larger than 1.96 and smaller than -1.96
indicate significant relations. As it can be seen in Figure 3, all relations among concepts and dimensions of
organizational intelligence are significant.
To explain the relation between organizational creativity and its dimensions, data were analyzed through
the software in Standard Solution mode (Figure 4). As it can be seen in the figure, all factorial loads are
above .5; furthermore, the average of extracted variance for organizational creativity was .54. Convergent
and discriminant validities were confirmed which indicates that factors can explain the concept of
organizational creativity well. Figure 5 is the software output in T-Values mode for latent variable of
organizational creativity. As it can be clearly observed, all coefficients have significance over 1.96; therefore,
relations among organizational creativity concept and its dimensions are significant.
4462
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Figure 2. Lisrel Output for Organizational Intelligence Variable in Standard Solution Mode
Figure 3. Lisrel Output for Organizational Intelligence Variable in T-Value Mode
Figure 4. Lisrel Output for Organizational Creativity Variable in Standard Solution Mode
Figure 5. Lisrel Output for Organizational Creativity Variable in T-Value Mode
The relations among variables of conceptual model of the present study were analyzed through Structural
Equation Modeling by Lisrel. Lisrel output for conceptual model is presented in Figure 6. Value .87 indicates
strong influence of organizational intelligence on organizational creativity. Moreover, software output in TValues mode is presented in Figure 7. Value 10.20 denotes significant relation between organizational
4463
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
intelligence and organizational creativity; therefore, the hypothesis is confirmed and results show that
organizational intelligence has a positive and significant effect on organizational creativity. In addition, the
values of factorial loads of markers of each latent variable and their significance level (according to the
reported T values) confirms that all markers are properly located in their own place. Therefore, it can be
concluded that markers which were used has an acceptable accordance with the theoretical foundation of
this study. Since the t statistics reported for all markers is above 1.96, all markers are significant at the level
5%.
Properties of model fitness are presented in Table 4. The results of Absolute Fitness Indices, which
includes GFI and RMR, show that variance and covariance of error were properly controlled. For
Cooperative Fit Indices, which includes CFI, IFI, NNFI and NFI, it is concluded that their values
Figure 6. Lisrel Output for Conceptual Model of the Study
Figure 7. Lisrel Output for T-Values Mode of Conceptual Model of the Study
are above .95 for this model which is an appropriate value. Furthermore, the reported value for Root Mean
Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) index denotes that measurement error has been controlled.
Generally, the results of Table 4 indicate that model has a good fitness with data. Therefore, the estimated
parameters in this model are dependable.
4464
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Table 4. Properties of Model Fitness
Reported Value
Desirable Limit
Index
1.69
Between 1 to 3
Relative Chi - Square
.03
≥.08
RMR
.94
≤.90
GFI
.90
≤.90
AGFI
.97
≤.90
NFI
.98
≤.90
NNFI
.99
≤.90
IFI
.99
≤.90
CFI
.96
≤.90
RFI
.062
≥.08
RMSEA
Results and Discussion
Considering Figures 6 and 7, it is evident that markers of Alignment and Congruence and Heart, with the
factorial load of .76, have the highest influence and performance pressure, with the factorial load of .62, has
the lowest influence on the formation of latent variable of organizational intelligence. As to the formation of
organizational creativity latent variable, usefulness of ideas, with the factorial load of .85, has the highest
influence and the number of ideas, with the factorial load of .79 and number of creative problem solving, with
the factorial load of .55 are ranked next.
As it was stated, all markers have significant factorial load on their own latent variables. Considering the
coefficient path of .87 and the significant value of t (10.20), it can be inferred that organizational intelligence
has a positive and significant effect on creativity; moreover, the value of reported R, which is .65, indicates
that organizational intelligence can explain 65% of changes in organizational creativity. The above result is in
line with the results of studies done by Pour Kiani et al (2013), Mehrara et al (2012), Nasabee (2009),
Kazemi et al (2012) and Potas et al (2010).
Conclusion
Organizational creativity has an influential role on survival and competitiveness of every organization and
knowing the factors affecting this creativity is imperative to identifying the challenges ahead and enhancing
organizational performance. The main objective of the present study was investigating the effect of
organizational intelligence on organizational creativity. The findings indicate a positive and significant relation
between organizational intelligence on organizational creativity and organizational intelligence explains 65%
of changes in organizational creativity. Therefore, increase in organizational intelligence leads to increase in
the number of ideas, their usefulness and number of creative problem solving at the level of organization and
all of these factors significantly increase organizational creativity.
In conclusion, organizations especially manufacturing ones can raise the level of organizational creativity
through improving organizational intelligence influential factors such as knowledge management (Nazem et
al, 2013; Pour Kiani et al, 2013), organizational learning (Shahabi et al, 2012; ; Potas et al,2010),
organizational culture (Pour Kiani et al,2013 ;Kazemi et al, 2012), organization structure (Pour Kiani et al,
2013; Kazemi et al,2012), quality of working life (Sohrabi et al, 2013; Kazemi et al,2012), and organizational
communications (Kazemi et al, 2012; Matsuda,1992).
References
Akgun AE, Byrne J, Keskin H, 2006. Organizational intelligence: a structuration view. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 20(3): 272-289.
Albrecht K, 2003. The power of minds at work: organizational intelligence in action, American Management
Association. New York
Amabile TM, 1997. Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving
What
You Do, California Management Reviev, 40(1).
Andriopoulos C, 2001. Determinants of organizational creativity: a literature review, Management Decision.
39(10): 834 – 841.
Beheshtifar M, Kamanifard FB, 2013. Organizational Creativity: A Substantial Factor to Growth.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences March, 3(3): 98-104.
Bratnicka K, Gabrys B, Bratnicki M, 2013. How Organizational Creativity Influence Firm`s Profitability: The
th
Moderating Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship, 8 European Conference on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, 19-20 September2013.
4465
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Dayan M, 2006. The Moderating Effect of Market Turbulence on Organizational Intelligence, In international
conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 566-70.
Drazin R, Glynn MA, Kazanjian RK, 1999. Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A
Sensemaking Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 286-307.
Fisher CM, Amabile T, 2009. Creativity, improvisation and organizations, In: T. Richards, M. A. Runco and S.
Monger, eds, The Routledge Companion to Creativity, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, London.
Hu H, Gu Q, Chen J, 2012. How and when does transformational leadership affect organizational creativity
and innovation? Nankai Business Review International, 4(2): 147-166.
Hunter ST, Bedell KE, Mumford MD, 2007. Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review, Creativity Research
Journal. 19(1): 69-90.
Isaksen SG, Ekvall G, 2010. Managing for Innovation: The Two Faces of Tension in Creative Climates,
Creativity and Innovation Management. 19(2): 73-88.
Kazemi M, Lagzin M, Malekzadeh G, Pour S, 2012. Dimensions of Organizational Intelligence in Iranian
Universities Information Processing Perspective, Journal of Information Systems and
Telecommunication, 1(1): 1-17.
Khorshidi SA, Abdoli F, Khorshidi SA, 2013. Identify Factors Affecting Organizational Creativity: A literature
review. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(5): 1214 – 1220.
Kordestani KA, Kafcheh P, Khaksar M, 2013. Investigation of relationship between organizational
intelligence and competitive strategy in banks, Journal of basic and applied scientific research, 3(2):
37-43.
Lefter V, Prejmerean M, Vasilache S, 2008. The dimensions of organizational intelligence in Romanian
companies–a human capital perspective, Theoretical and Applied Economics, 10(10): 39-40.
Maimone F, Sinclair M, 2010. Chapter 12 Affective climate, organizational creativity, and knowledge
creation: case study of an automotive company, In Emotions and Organizational Dynamism,
Published online: 309-332.
Marjani AB, Arabi P, 2011. The Role of Organizational Intelligence in Organizational Knowledge
Management (The Case of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran), European Journal of
Social Sciences, 26(1): 49-56.
Mehrara A, Azamisaroklaei S, Sadeghi M, Fatthi A, 2012. Relation between Organizational Intelligence and
Creativity of Managers in Public Junior High Schools of East of Gilan Province. Journal of Basic and
Applied Scientific Research. 2(4): 3311-3315.
Mooghali A, Azizi P, 2008. Organizational Intelligence and Organizational Knowledge Management
Development. World Applied Science Journal. 4(1): 01-08.
Moultrie J, Young A, 2009. Exploratory Study of Organizational Creativity in Creative Organizations.
Creativity and Innovation Management. 18(4): 299-314.
Nasabi N, Safarpour AR, 2009. Key Factors in Achieving to an Intelligent Organization in the View of
Employee in Shiraz University of Medical Science in 2008. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 3(4): 3492-3499.
Perkins D, 2003. King Arthur’s round table: How collaborative conversations create smart organizations.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potas N, Erçetin SS, Koçak S, 2010. Multi dimensional organizational intelligence measurements for
determining the institutional and managerial capacity of girls’ technical education institution. African
Journal of Business Management. 4(8): 1644-1651.
Pourkiani M, Pourjafarijozam M, PourjafariJozam M, 2013. Organizational Intelligence, survival factor of
today’s organizations. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Science.
1(5): 469-484.
Sohrabi R, Asari M, Hozoori MJ, 2013. Relationship between Workforce Agility and Organizational
Intelligence (Case Study: The Companies of "Iran High Council of Informatics). Asian Social
Science. 10(4): 279-287.
Styhre A, Sundgren M, 2005. Managing Creativity in Organizations: Critique and Practices, Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York .
Sung YS, Choi JN, 2012. Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial
performance of organizational teams, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 413.
Veryard R, 2012. Building Organizational Intelligence, http://leanpub.com/orgintelligence
West MA, Hirst G, Richter A, Shipton H, 2004. Twelve steps to heaven: successfully managing change
through innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13:269-299.
Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW, 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity, the Academy of
Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
4466
Intl. J. Manag. Human. Sci. Vol., 4 (1), 4456-4467, 2015
Yen Yunlin C, ChuanLiu F, 2012. A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived
innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1): 55-76.
4467