The methodological principles of our research are the systemic approach and the principle of development of psychological qualities. The methodological basis of this research is the psychometric approach to creativity, the representatives of which (J. Guilford, E. Torrens, F. Williams)[17, 34, 36] define the indicators of creativity, since setting indicators makes creativity measurable. F. Williams methodology developed evaluates both cognitive and personal-individual qualities of creativity. Cognitive factors of creativity are fluency of thinking, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The personal-individual factors of creativity are the ability to take risks, complexity, curiosity, and imagination [35]. Research was done using the methods of diagnostics by F. Williams for creativity assessment and for discovering the individual qualities of a creative person.
Two hundred (n = 200) managers of Republic Armenia participated in the study. 116 of them are men, 84 are women. Testing and expert questionnaire methods were applied. We use the Methods of survey, testing, mathematical statistical analysis for this study. The study was done by groups and by individuals. The study of barriers and contributing factors was done in some groups in group format, at first a discussion was organised, then they completed the questionnaire .
The results of the research were analyzed by SPSS-23 mathematical-statistical software.
Literature review
The article has theoretical and practical significance. The theoretical significance is that the concepts of creativity are supplemented, a new model of creativity study is put forward, in which obstacles and supporting factors of creativity play a special role.
The practical significance is that this study can be a basis for the development of creativity of a person and for creating the best conditions in organizations for its manifestation.
The scientific novelty is that the level of creativity, personal qualities of creativity, contributing and hindering factors of creativity are studied in the creativity study model.
The creativity was studied in some approaches (Maslow, A., Lubart, T. ,Gardner, H., Mednick, S., Simonton, D., Runco, M.,)[16; 21; 22; 25; 26; 30; 31]but until now no one has given the final definition, which led to the absence of joint research system. Due to this we offer a new model of a person's creativity.
The role of environmental factors, which is still one of the controversial issues in the concepts of creativity and has been subject to long discussions, is particularly emphasized in the creativity study model proposed by us. We will briefly review several theoretical approaches, which emphasize the role of environmental factors and will complement them with our studies.
The interaction between creativity and environment is considered in not all concepts of creativity. Today, one of the most important concepts of creativity is the investment theory, which takes into account the role of social factors. As Peter Meusburger [27] points out, the original concepts of creativity do not address the issue of interaction with the environment. Researchers state that creative people have a special talent that others do not have, that creativity is a gift or innate talent that cannot be acquired or taught.
However, later on, the role of environmental factors is emphasized more. P. Meusburger [27, p. 97] states that more scientists began to accept the fact that creativity is not an innate quality of a person, no matter how talented and clever he is. They began to accept the fact that creative ideas arise and develop as a result of a complex dynamic interaction between the creator and his/her environment.
In other words, creativity requires time and certain environmental conditions.
Cropley A. [11, p. 402] notes that interest in the impact of environmental contents, attitudes, and relationships on creativity emerged only in the late 20th century. The author considers the reason for this delay is the fact that new, unique and valuable ideas often meet resistance because they threaten traditions and can destroy existing paradigms and ruling relations. Both ignorance and the highly valued prior knowledge of experts can block novel ideas, so that thinking leads only to production of tried and trusted, "correct" answers.
We cannot disagree with this point of view, because our experiments have also shown that very often managers refuse to accept new ideas proposed by employees as they are a threat to stability and known ideas. Also, employees often avoid using new methods and tools, because there are already reliable and correct options. Such comments are often heard. "If the previously used method brings us results, why do we need a new method, the usefulness of which we do not know?", "If there is an easy way, why do we need to take a difficult way?" Even the new methods of problem solving presented during the training cause rebellion among them. Such attitudes do not allow employees to get out of the mental patterns they have built, to take risks, to try and find new ways and methods, to improve the system. Meanwhile, we cannot deny the fact that the global paradigm of management has changed: the employee has a desire to push his/her ideas forward, to participate in the decision- making process.
P. Meusburger [27, p.99] considers the approaches of Sternberg and Lubart [32], Frensch & Funke [15]. A unique approach to the interaction of creativity and environment is found in Sternberg and Lubart [32], who state that environment has a great importance, because the stimulating environment and the talented person must be in interaction before the creative process begins.
Frensch &Funke [15, p. 18] puts forward another original observation. He states that creative potential must be realized in the family, school environment, role models, organizational structures, culture, and professional career opportunities. This interaction is not mechanical. Creative people are not only nurtured, they are included in the environment, where they can develop their abilities, interact with other people, get the necessary support, get excited, solve problems and have the necessary resources. “Joint problem solving involves effective interaction with the problem solver and situational conditions. It includes the problem solver's knowledge, cognitive, emotional, personal and social abilities’’.
Creativity is the ability to create the result that is new and corresponds to the content of the surrounding reality, the limitations of the situation [3; 4; 22; 24;].
Amabile (1996) finds, that there are three components for creativity: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation[2; 10; 23, p. 45].
M. Csikszentmihalyi [13] thinks in a similar way noting that creativity is not in the head, but in the field of interaction between human mind and socio-cultural context.
In this system of interaction, he distinguishes three parts: the domain, the field, and the person. Based on this he gives the following definition of creativity: creativity is each action, result and idea that changes an existing domain or transforms an existing one into a new one. A creative person is a person whose thoughts change the domain or create a new one. However, the domain cannot be changed without the consent of the representatives of the relevant field.
It turns out that M. Csikszentmihalyi [13] emphasizes the role of both domain and field in his theory especially emphasizing the role of domain, as a person cannot be creative in a domain he/she does not master.
We believe these are the key issues that cannot be ignored in the process of developing creativity, since our studies have found out that most employees do not show their creativity as their managers do not value their ideas.
Here are some examples: "Leaving the important issues, you are busy painting a butterfly", "Your proposal is not relevant now. We need to use a lot of resources to implement it".
The role of environmental factors is highlighted in the comments that emphasize the importance of creativity in terms of benefiting the organization and the environment. The article [27, p. 101] presents a number of authors' approaches. For example Briskman [9], argues that one of the characteristics of a creative result is its relevance, the internal connection that exists between the result and the background where it arises. Stein [33] suggests that creative work is the new one that is accepted by a group as reasonable, useful, or satisfying at some point in time. Oldham and Cummings describe creative activity as a result, idea or process that meets two conditions: first, they are new and original, second, they are relevant or useful to the organization[29]. In the field of management, Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin [37] describe creativity as the creation of a valuable, useful new product, idea or process by people working together in a complex social system.
Although the mentioned authors point out environmental factors, they do not propose methodologies and models of the study, which will reveal the influence of environmental factors.
These comments prove once again that creativity, as the creation of something new and valuable, cannot be considered outside of the system and the structure where it is created, which means that the impact on it should also be considered within the specific structure and system. This further expands the methodical approaches to creating favorable conditions for the development of creativity, that is, when suggesting a program for the development of creativity, it is necessary to take into account the environment and the structure in which it should be implemented.
An interesting definition of collective creativity put forward by Hargadon and Bechky [18] state that collective creativity is the moment when people with different perspectives and different experiences come together to find, reformulate and solve problems, getting new solutions that no one could easily get while working alone. According to this, people who are willing to discuss ideas and thoughts also play an important role in environmental factors.
According to the approach of M. Csikszentmihalyi [12] collective creative work is also a result of the organizational environment and arises under the influence of the interaction between the ideas of different people and the socio-cultural context. We believe that noticing diversity and differences allows us to get out of thinking patterns and see new horizons. The barriers to creativity take into account these environmental factors.
We are also inclined to the approach that creativity is a quality expressed by the influence of the environment, which is also approved by our research. It is obvious that proper conditions are necessary for the manifestation of creativity. Favorable environmental conditions allow not only to create new ideas, but also to make them real.
When addressing the factors contributing to the manifestation of creativity, we are directly related to the issue of collective creativity, which is considered a priority in organizations due to its type and demand.
D. Harrington considered creativity as a joint activity, since individual creativity is always the product of interaction with a wider social environment[19].
When considering the characteristics of the manifestation of creativity in joint activities and the organizational environment, it is necessary to take into account the organizational environment, the influence of the factors of that environment on the manifestation of creativity. In this context, the approach of Kratzer [20] is interesting, according to which the creative nature of developing something new requires the involvement and cooperation of different members of the organization, which means that the communication model in the group is an important factor contributing to the expression of creativity. Manifestation of creativity in the level of individuals and collectives largely depends on how much attention the management of the given organization pays to the creation of favorable conditions. The team's collective creativity and individual creativity are activated if the organization supports and stimulates the creative processes of its employees.
According to C. Andriopoulos [6], there are five organizational components that can be used to influence employee creativity: Organizational climate, organizational culture, organizational structure, allocated resources, skills and abilities.
The organizational culture that promotes the manifestation of creativity has a key role for employees, as it becomes their way of life. It is not considered as an advantage or a privilege, but a natural process.
According to Hargadon and Bechky [18], there are four main interactions supporting the manifestation of collective creativity: asking for help, giving help, reflexive reframing and reinforcement.
Based on these analyses, we created a questionnaire aimed at identifying the factors contributing to the manifestation of creativity in the managerial environment. Let's briefly reflect on the content of these factors and try to understand how they contribute to the development and manifestation of creativity. As a factor contributing to the manifestation of creativity in the organization, we consider the presence of management methods based on mutual trust. There are a number of studies in this field [3; 18], that mention the use of methods based on mutual trust creates a relaxed atmosphere in the group, which contributes to the generation of new ideas that can be useful for business or management.
The manifestation of creativity in the organizational environment is greatly influenced by the leader's willingness to accept new thoughts and ideas and to promote their implementation. Creative ideas and thoughts cannot be brought forth in an environment where there is constant criticism and opposition to those thoughts. In this regard, the manager's personality and his attitude to the promotion of new ideas, as well as bringing them into the field of practical application, are highly important.
According to Neumann [28] and Edmondson [14] joint problem solving is one of the factors supporting creativity. This gives an opportunity to create an atmosphere of mutual support in the group, which contributes to the promotion of joint decisions and makes it possible to apply techniques that contribute to collective creativity.
The feeling of psychological security both at the individual and group level is an important psychological factor contributing to the formation and manifestation of creativity. So it is important to create an atmosphere of mutual cooperation and trust.
It is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that it is important to have people with different thinking styles in the group. The inclusion of people with different professions in the group is also considered as a contributing factor. This provides an opportunity to advance multi-content, diverse, cross-sectoral ideas and generate new ideas, which have a broad spectrum.
Since the creation of favorable conditions for the development and manifestation of creativity in organizations has become one of the imperatives of the time, many organizations already include specialists working on the creation of favorable conditions for the development and manifestation of creativity.
The above-mentioned factors depend on both the objective organizational and subjective personal features. However, there are also purely subjective factors that contribute to the manifestation of creativity. These factors are connected to the characteristics of the person. From this point of view, we consider the desire for self-improvement and self-development, the inspiration to create new ideas, enthusiasm, self-confidence, learning to take risks, the ability to dream, to take creative breaks, to develop and refine an idea.
Based on the theoretical approaches, we also did an experimental study of the factors promoting and hindering the manifestation of creativity. The study aimed to identify which factors promoting and hindering the manifestation of creativity are most pronounced among modern managers.