creativity & work

I'm reading a Swedish statistical investigation about well-being at work and its psychological effects. In the beginning of the investigation, it is stated:

"In order to attract and keep workforce on an increasingly more competitive labor market, organizations are required to create a climate that purports creativity and intellectual work. Not only is this a tactic for attracting the best employees, but it is also a necessary strategy for competing on a global market. For these reasons business firms have started to take an interest in 'soft values' and, even if this is often stated conventionally, have started to acknowledge that employees are primary assets."

This quote is riddled with ambiguity. Should we say that companies, for economic reasons, have good reasons to offer stimulating jobs ("ethics as an instrument") - or should we go even farther and say that even the concepts of "creativy" and "intellectual work" are tailor-made to suit the needs of the market? That is, "creativity" is a good word that is used to give the impression of a new reality, in which companies relying on workers performing simple, manual labor can no longer compete on the market. Well, the impression might hide the truth: that "creativity" is simply whatever "economic reality" requires at the moment (yet another level of nu-speak). Rather than building upon the idea that a stimulating job will enhance performance, this figure of thought seems to be imposed on employees, who are encouraged to think of their jobs in that way, even though in reality their jobs are far from the intellectual utopia they are claimed to be.