Robert Anthony Edgell Prof. Dr. Martin Hilb Prof. Dr. Andreas Grüner

306 Pages·2007·4.76 MB·English

Chapter 1 Introduction: Creativity in the Media Industry 1

Creativity and Management in the Media Industry:
Empirical Analysis of North American
Independent Magazines

DISSERTATION
of the University of St. Gallen,
Graduate School of Business Administration,
Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG)
to obtain the title of
Doctor Oeconomiae

submitted by
Robert Anthony Edgell
from
The United States of America

Approved on the application of

Prof. Dr. Martin Hilb
and
Prof. Dr. Andreas Grüner

Dissertation no. 3333

Gutenberg AG 2007
The University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics,
Law and Social Sciences (HSG) hereby consents to the printing of the present
dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed.

St. Gallen, May 21, 2007

The President:

Prof. Ernst Mohr, Ph.D.

© Robert Anthony Edgell 2007. All rights reserved.
Preface

As one who has been privileged to have lived both the creative life of an architect and the
business life of a media executive, this study has been personally rewarding. For nearly
my entire adult life, I have been preoccupied with the creative gulf—perhaps best
characterized as multicultural—between finders and solvers. Through this investigation, I
have attempted to better understand this chasm and to offer hope for more durable
media habitats that nourish and comfort our intellectual and social souls. I hope readers
will agree.

This work would not have been possible without the considerable contributions of
others—to each and every one of them I extend my heartfelt gratitude. In particular, my
senior advisor, Professor Martin Hilb, has been a magnificent counselor as he granted
me the wide interdisciplinary berth required to explore such a rich topic, while remaining
an incredible source of insight and inspiration. I thank him personally for encouraging me
to take on this immense project and inviting me to participate in the academic world. I am
forever changed. Likewise my second advisor, Professor Andreas Grüner, despite his
busy schedule, has generously lent support. Although not a formal advisor, Professor
Mark Runco of the California State University, Fullerton, graciously volunteered his
extensive expertise on creativity by answering my correspondence. This is surely
evidence that an open, connected society bears immense benefit. I am no less indebted
to Professor Klaus Edel, Dr. Florian Stahl, Dr. Michael Cole, and Dr. Cynthia Loubier for
their advice on statistical methods and analysis strategies.

I owe an exceptional debt of gratitude to my personal brain trust, developed from many
years of work in media and friendship. These friends, Michael Tekulsky, Stefanie Jewell-
Thomas, Ethan Hanabury, Benjamin Arseguel, Richard Landry, and Roland Vogl have all
been exceptional in sharing their intellect, creative ideas, and warm support. They have
helped to shape my thinking on creativity, media, economics, and the public sphere. In
addition, I owe a special thank you to my friend Richard Karat for volunteering his expert
and fastidious eye to proofread my writings. I also thank all of my St. Gallen friends,
notably Dr. Katharina Klöckner and Bernhard Hutter, for making my time there most
pleasurable and memorable.

I am grateful to all of the survey participants, especially the members of the former
Independent Press Association, since without them the empirical study would not have
been possible. Both Professor Sue Redding of the California College of the Arts and
Preface ii
Professor Michael Genesereth of Stanford University’s Computer Science Department
charitably supported the survey process by identifying scholarly participants. I wish to
thank the following students and alumni: Liam Adelman, Eric Bergman, Amy Bochenek,
Matt Brown, Jix Foo, Ankit Garg, David Gobaud, David Haley, Armin Haller, Brooke
Hansen, Tim Hinrichs, Kevan Hollenback, Mike Kassoff, Byron Kawaichi, Jason Lew,
Mandana MacPherson, Joanna Manders, Francisco Martin-Recuerda, Kiersten
Muenchinger, Adam Reinick, Clark Scheffy, Dante Sigona, and Danny Tarlow.

Lastly, I am indebted to my family and elders, Robert, C. Iris, Donna, and Larry for having
illuminated the passageway for me and for always reminding me that, in their words, “It is
not the answer that matters, it is knowing which question to ask.” Likewise, my true-to-
the-core Swiss partner, Daniel Kuhn, has been there from the beginning and has endured
my countless long nights and intense weekends of preoccupation. His emotional support,
advice, care, and exquisite food have made this journey not only possible, but truly
enjoyable. I am fortunate and thankful.

San Francisco, California, June 30, 2007 Robert Anthony Edgell
iii

Table of Contents

Abstract....................................................................................................1
1 Introduction..........................................................................................2
1.1 Social Importance of the Media Industry...................................3
1.2 Research Objective and Questions ...........................................7
1.2.1 Creation Problem.........................................................................................7
1.2.2 Actor Problem..............................................................................................8
1.2.3 Diversity Problem.......................................................................................10
1.2.4 Conflict Problem.........................................................................................11
1.3 Research Relevance..................................................................12
1.4 Research Approach and Limitations.......................................14
1.5 Definitions..................................................................................15
1.5.1 Creativity....................................................................................................15
1.5.2 Media Industry...........................................................................................15
1.5.3 North American Independent Magazines..................................................16
1.5.4 Management..............................................................................................17
1.5.5 Senior Management Team........................................................................17
1.5.6 Behavior and Communication....................................................................17
1.5.7 Conflict and Cooperation...........................................................................18
1.6 Dissertation Structure...............................................................19
2 Theory.................................................................................................21
2.1 Theories and Models.................................................................22
2.1.1 Classification of Existing Literature and Theories......................................22
2.1.2 Literature Review.......................................................................................23
2.1.3 Discussion of Relevant Theories and Models............................................35
2.2 Conceptual Framework.............................................................41
2.3 Hypotheses................................................................................45
2.3.1 Heterogeneity: Team-Level Diversity.........................................................45
2.3.2 Critical Antecedents: Demographic and Personality Factors....................50
2.3.3 Communication and Process as Mediating Constructs.............................51
2.3.4 Moderating Effects of Situation: Network Congruence and Voice.............56
Table of Contents iv
3 Empirical Study..................................................................................58
3.1 Objectives..................................................................................59
3.2 Method........................................................................................59
3.2.1 Strategy......................................................................................................59
3.2.2 Sites and Targets.......................................................................................60
3.2.3 Survey Procedure and Instruments...........................................................64
3.2.4 Measures...................................................................................................71
3.2.5 Integrity and Limitations.............................................................................80
3.2.6 Level of Analysis........................................................................................82
3.2.7 Analysis Strategy.......................................................................................83
3.3 Results and Hypotheses Tests.................................................86
3.3.1 Statistical Assumptions, Response Rates, and Survey Error....................86
3.3.2 Descriptive Statistics by Instrument...........................................................89
3.3.3 Results for Demographic and Personality Factors....................................95
3.3.4 Results for Team-Level Diversity.............................................................121
3.3.5 Results for Situation, Communication, and Process...............................133
3.3.5 Results for Predictive Models..................................................................156
4 Discussion........................................................................................168
4.1 Overview ..................................................................................169
4.2 Findings for Demographic and Personality Factors ............169
4.3 Findings for Team-Level.........................................................182
4.4 Findings for Situation, Communication, and Process.........188
4.5 Findings for Predictive Models..............................................194
5 Conclusion.......................................................................................204
5.1 Research Contributions..........................................................205
5.2 Implications and Recommendations for Research ..............209
5.3 Implications and Recommendations for Media Practice .....213
5.4 Concluding Remarks...............................................................216
References...........................................................................................217
Index of Figures, Graphs, and Tables................................................233
Table of Contents v
Appendices ..........................................................................................236
A1 Analysis of Potential Methods................................................237
A2 Conceptual Publication Organizations..................................246
A3 CMW1 Instrument....................................................................247
A4 CMW2 Instrument....................................................................267
A5 CMW3 Instrument....................................................................274
A6 IPIP Personality Trait Measures..............................................279
A7 Distributions for CMW1 Variables..........................................280
A8 Distributions for CMW2 Variables..........................................283
A9 Distributions for CMW3 Variables..........................................285
A10 Results Summaries................................................................286
A11 Respondent Recommendations...........................................288
A12 Author Profile and Curriculum Vitae....................................293
1
Abstract
The study investigated how various creatively heterogeneous actors interact in media
habitats and determined management approaches for optimizing content creation. While
many scholars have focused on problem solving and innovation, few have studied the
effects of artistic or problem finding creativity in an organizational setting. This
interdisciplinary research was guided by a framework, consisting of fourteen hypotheses,
that mapped relationships among primary variables including: Profile Diversity (balance
between two distinct personality-based creativity profiles, problem finding and solving),
Values Diversity, Voice, “Coflict” (four ratios of conflict and cooperation), self-reported
outcomes (Publication, Senior Management, and Social Mission), and independent
expert-judged outcomes (Creativity, Technical Goodness, and Aesthetics).

The empirical study, based on a hybrid cross-sectional and longitudinal survey series
strategy, primarily used three instruments to collect data. In three waves with 45 key
measures, responses were gathered from a number of senior management team
members (for small mission-driven North American publications), from confirmed artists
and scientists, and from independent expert judges who rated products from each
publication. To explore and test hypotheses, a variety of statistical methods were used,
including hierarchical linear and logistic regression modeling.

Surprisingly, the results confirmed a consistently perfect polarity of mean personality
factor scores between finders and solvers. Along five personality dimensions, both
groups significantly differed in terms of Factor 1 Socialized, Factor 4 Unexploring, and
Factor 5 Eager. The study’s findings argue that small, mission-driven media enterprises
may optimize products (i.e., creativity premium) and enhance organizational outcomes by
leveraging diversity, situation, communication, and process variables. This assertion is
supported by four secondary arguments that media teams can benefit from: 1) engaging
in higher levels of Coflict 2, the ratio of Content Conflict to the sum of Process and
Relationship Conflict; 2) constructing habitat environments characterized as high in Voice
and low in Network Congruence; 3) maximizing Profile Diversity while minimizing Values
Diversity; and 4) better understanding the unique personalities and creative capabilities
that both finders and solvers bring to the content creation process. The study concludes
by discussing the top five most interesting opportunities for future research. For practice,
senior management teams are encouraged to assess their situation and then engage in a
dialog regarding how these study findings might be most usefully applied. This might then
result in a strategic plan for change.
2

C.
N
L I
A
N
O
TI
A
N
R
E
T
N
K I
C
O
T
S
I

The image above symbolizes the strategic habitat
challenges facing media organizations as the rift
between opposing, yet potentially complementary,
groups of actors widens.

Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
1.1 Social Importance of the Media Industry
This study provides new information and insights surrounding creativity and management
that address how media organizations, especially those that are mission-driven, can
better fulfill vital social purposes. I have initiated this study with a brief overview of the
history and challenges facing media, since an understanding of the historical situation
and current context is a prerequisite to grasping the deeper relevance of creativity. As I
trust this study demonstrates, efforts to overcome threats to the sustainability of media as
a social institution can benefit from new management approaches that foster creativity.

Conceivably more than any other institution or industry, media plays a decidedly social
role in that it provides the unique and critical service of informing the public. Given this
institutional obligation to nourish the public’s appetite for information, media has
historically been referred to as the Fourth Estate. When Thomas Carlyle first used this
phrase in relation to media, he wrote:

Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the
Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far
than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal
fact,--very momentous to us in these times. Literature is our Parliament
too. Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is
equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable.
— Carlyle (1840, p. 4)

As Carlyle described, media is vital for the proper functioning of liberal democracies since
citizens need information if they are to meaningfully engage in public discourse. In more
recent years, other media researchers and theorists, such as Bagdikian (2004), Herman
and Chomsky (2002), McChesney (2004), McChesney and Cockburn (2005), Moyers
(2007), and Nichols, McChesney, Tomorrow, and Robbins (2005) to name only a few,
have increasingly framed democracy and the media within the boundaries of Habermas’
(1991) public sphere or “marketplace of ideas”, a concept that refers to the fundamental
right of citizens, regardless of power and position, to engage in a free exchange of ideas,
informed debates, and expression of political views (Baran, 2004). Declarations1 and acts
by major political entities, such as UNESCO’s 1993 establishment of a World Press
Freedom Day to be held each year, support this view (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2005). Furthermore, economists and
financial market researchers (Baron, 1996, 2001; Djankov, McLeish, Nenova, & Shleifer,

1 For example, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims, “Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.” (United Nations, 1948, article 19)