Some have argued social capital provides synergy for creative cooperation among employees. Creativity and efficiency have been established as two concepts that oppose each other; however, they are both essential to maintain the competitiveness of an organization. This study investigated the interaction between social capital on organizational creativity and efficiency and examined the links between organizational creativity and efficiency. In addition, it is aimed to provide recommendations based on results regarding the effectiveness of social capital on organizational creativity. In this empirical study, the data on perceptions concerning social capital, organizational creativity and organizational efficiency was gathered by means of a questionnaire completed by 131 managers working in the Turkish Employment Agency. Subsequently, data was analyzed with the SmartPLS software and presented in tables. The findings showed that social capital has an effect on organizational creativity and organizational efficiency. Results also provided support for the effect of organizational creativity on the organizational efficiency.

Introduction

To survive in today’s rapidly changing environment, organizations are compelled to continuously re-evaluate their products, services, and their market edge in comparison with other organizations and the emerging trends. In such an environment, creativity and efficiency are vital elements for public and private organizations (Cankar, 2013; Manzoor, 2014; Serrat, 2009). Organizations increasingly search for ways to improve creativity and efficiency in terms of the performance of individuals (their employees) and the organization as a whole in order to gain and maintain a competitive advantage (Foster & Kaplan, 2011). Creativity can be defined as “the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004), and organizational creativity is considered as a function of the creative outputs of its constituents and contextual effects such as organizational culture, rewards, resources (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). On the other hand, a creative organization is characterized as “any business entity whose main source of income comes from the production of novel and appropriate ideas, processes, products or services to tackle clients’ problems or opportunities identified” (Andriopoulos, 2000, p. 16). This is reminiscent of Guilford’s classic take on creativity where “the creative person has novel ideas. The degree of novelty of which the person is capable, or which he habitually exhibits… can be tested in terms of the frequency of uncommon, yet acceptable, responses to items” (Guilford, 1950). However, Guilford’s wording of “acceptable” has been challenged, considered to be begging the question (Runco & Garrett, 2012). Andriopoulos’s use of the word “appropriate” may fall under the same criticism. I humbly suggest an alternative word, useful, found in the definition of organizational creativity from Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin (1993).