Can you peer review my two articles with sharing your thoughts and giving me a positive or negative response? Can you also put question related to my articles to make it interactive ?

Article 1 :-

Amabile (1998) believed that creativity consists of three important parts: expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation. And each part has a minimum limit, the "threshold of sufficiency." At this nadir, creativity can be limited and affected. And when these ingredients are far beyond this limit, creativity will not be enhanced. I think her theory illustrates some similarities between creativity and the buckets effect. Creativity is greatly improved when we have an ability or are under-resourced. Moreover, whether the company provides sufficient resources for employees will also affect the morale and psychology of employees. When the resources are sufficient, they will be more confident in the value of the project and their efforts, which may indirectly promote creativity. I agree with Amabile that excessive or wrong evaluation can negatively affect creativity. Because if the evaluation process punishes mistakes too harshly at the beginning or monitors the process too closely. Then in the initial stage of many projects, the project will always be interrupted or canceled due to complete evaluation, which will inhibit people's willingness to innovate (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). because people choose not to innovate to avoid the risk of failure or make small improvements on the original process. A phased, step-by-step evaluation can bring constructive impetus and support to the project and better promote creativity. (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). I feel like a good example is the school grading system. We always use standardized grades to measure students' abilities, but grades are only part of the assessment. Too much reliance on standardized grades will limit students' thinking because they sometimes have to change their answers and ideas to cater to the teacher's preferences. So I think it takes more dimensions to evaluate a person's ability. In fact, this kind of corporate culture depends more on managers for creativity. Kodak's staff invented the digital camera in 1975, proving that Kodak's creativity is very strong. But they resisted new technology in favor of and relied on traditional film technology, thus missing out on the wave of digital photography, which eventually led to bankruptcy (Mueller, 2012). So I think a strong, cohesive culture can support creativity, but only if the culture also convinces management.

Article 2 :-

- Amabile brings up this notion of "threshold of sufficiency" where resources are needed to maintain levels of creativity at workplace, if there is superabundance of resources this can lead to a decline in productivity/creativity (Dawson,2021). - I agree that if there is a superabundance of resources in the workplace, it can lead to lower productivity (creativity and innovation). As Eisenberger, 1996 proves that rewards which were easily achievable for individuals - this leads to lower motivation. This is caused by a mirage of self-competence and self-worth which leads to lower productivity. With lower motivation there is a lower sense of goal achievement. The rewards theory can be applied to superabundance of resources as well. Where the individuals are not going through the "grind" and this brings a false sense of homeostasis which will eventually affect productivity. - I think strong, cohesive cultures are conducive to creativity and innovation. This is because there is a sense of belonging and a sense of team within the whole company. In my experience, a strong, cohesive culture is a representation of strong values shared by everyone in the company. A strong understanding of values and mission helps the company intrinsically where the belief in the product and the innovation is very high. I am fortunate to work in a place like that where we have a strong culture and I have witnessed the forefront of gene-sequencing technology innovation in the worldwide market. Another important thing that a strong culture brings is psychological safety, everyone is open to new ideas however radical they might be. This eliminates the fear of speaking up and breeds a culture of collaboration.