Analysis of creativity and Innovation

Analysis of Creativity and Innovation“Nothing will come of nothing.” King Lear says“Mak e something out of nothing.” God says“Mak e something out of something.” Man saysIntroductionStated it simply, creativity is to make something new. As the creature of the God, we human beings have been creating enormous things on this planet, for the sake of survival and protection, contest and conquest, wellbeing and enjoyment, even mischief, or just of no reason. Hence there are bows and shields, telephones and spaceships, medicine and movies, as well as computer virus.Nowadays, people love the new, the original, the creative and innovative. They love it not only because of the popularity of revolutionaries or the trend of liberalization, but because it is the necessity to deal with the rapid environmental changes. Over the past few decades, creativity and innovation have become a highly fashionable topic, especially in business world where its importance to the continued success for business has been well recognized. Cook (1998) considers creativity as an element of competitive advantage for organizations, and Majaro (1991) suggests enhanced creativity can provide a company with a competitive edge. While many businessmen also allege that companies must innovate or they will die.Either favoured by researchers or critical for executives, creativity and innovation in business management has been investigated and practiced at all levels from organization structure, team project, to individual performance. In this paper, first there is a brief overview in the area about some key concepts and major theories relating to creativity enhancement and creative problem solving. Next, a discussion on team creativity building is elaborated. Last, it is the implication and implementation of certain creativity enhancement techniques in work situation in a given company.A Broad View on Creativity and InnovationCreativity vs. innovation:Notions about creativity and innovation are complex, and there isno one standard authority on the subject (Proctor, 2005). The twoterms are often used interchangeably and that may sometimesmislead literature reviewers who are new in the field.The concept of creativity often comes across in our daily life, and there are various definitions of it. The simplest one is ―thinking differently‖ from Dennis Gioia (1995) who saw creativity as the process of ―making the familiar strange and making the strange familiar.‖ Amabile’s (1996) definition of creativity as ―the production of novel and useful ideal in any domain‖has been widely cited. Similarly, Gilliam (1993) defined creativity as a process of discovering what has not been considered –the act of making new connections. They all imply that creativity involves seeing thing in a different way and idea generation is the key component of creativity (McAdam &McClelland, 2002). However, the concept is multi-faceted and more complicated than what it is expressed in words. As Koestler (1964) said: ―True creativity often starts where language ends.‖While creativity is clearly identified with idea generation, Gurteen (1998) defines innovation is about putting these ideas into action by sifting, refining and implementing. He also believes that creativity is about divergent thinking whereas innovation requires convergent thinking. Heap (1989) suggests that innovation is the results of creativity. Thompson (2003) also agrees that if creativity pertains to ideas, then innovation pertains to the services and products that result from creative ideas.Majaro (1988) depicted the relationship between creativity and innovation as a series of intersecting circles (see Figure 1), where creative ideas are the input and innovation is the output. Ideas are screened to produce results, which include making something newer, better, faster, cheaper, and/or more aesthetic. This view is supported by Amabile (1997) who considered creativity as the first step in innovation, which is the successful implementation of the novel, appropriate ideas.Figure 1 Relationship between creativity and innovationCreativity vs. imagination:Titus (2000) has defined creativity as ―the birth of imaginative new ideas‖. In general, the mathematician tends to get good ideas in mathematics, the musician in music, the psychologist in psychology. Creative thinking arises more easily in fields and in relation to problems that we know a good deal about (Proctor, 2005). Locke (1964) maintained that the source of all ideas is human experience and understanding, that is, ideas sprang from knowledge. This implies creativity is the essence of profound knowledge. While Albert Einstein once wrote: ―Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.Imagination encircles the world.‖Creativity is very much concerned with how we imaging things. Imagination is generally the first step in learning, or creating, something radically new. In creativity, imagination is making plans, seeing possibilities, even drawing blueprints. Egan (1992) defined imagination as the capacity to think of things in terms of possibilities, and is a conscious and intentional act of mind as well as the source of new and useful ideas and things in a particular context or discipline. Bailin (1994) agreed that creative achievement requires the use of the imagination. Skill and imagination are interwoven, and the reciprocal interaction between them allows for creative achievement and growth to manifest in new and useful developments in a given context or discipline.According to Roger Sperry’s Left Brain/Right Brain theory concerning creative thinking (see Le Boeuf, 1994), imaginative thinking is controlled by right brain, while problem solving is done by left brain. To put them work together to form one big mind, then it is creative problem solving.Componential theory of creativityAmabile’s (1997) Componential Theory of Organizational Creativity and Innovation suggests that employees’intrinsic motivation and social work environment are major elements influencing creativity and innovation within organizations. Organizational leaders must consider human motivation as a complex system where it is possible to achieve synergy with their work environment so as to foster individual creativity and become an innovative organization.Perpetual challenging processPerpetual challenging (Andriopoulos, C & Lowe, A, 2000) is about setting the parameters upon which creative individuals can achieve their full potential within creative organizations. This perpetual challenging process can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess the creativity in a working environment. The process is mostly relevant to knowledge-driven company in the creative industry such as advertising, design and media.The contrasts in academic and practitioner creativity themesGioia (1995) captures the essence of creativity by comparing the ways that academicians and practitioners construe the world of creativity in organizations. The contrasts in academic and practitioner creativity themes reveal that there are intriguing distinctions in the ways that the two groups think and act concerning creativity. Despite difference in conceptions of creativity in organizations, there are also a number of commonalities among the academic and practitioner. One of these convergences is that managerial leadership and support are critical to creative effort, which accords with Amabile’s (1997) Componential Theory that ―the orientation toward innovation must come, primarily, from the highest levels of management‖.Creative problem solvingOrganizations use creative problem solving (CPS) method to encourage their employees to think more creatively in order to develop more innovative products and services. There are four basic creative strengths and skills can be easily taught: Fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality (Proctor, 2005). And on the basis of general technique for solving problems which iscalled ―heuristics‖, combine Wallas’s (1926) model of the creative process (preparation, incubation, illumination and verification) with Bransford and Stein’s (1993) IDEAL model of problem solving, thereby the 6-stage creative problem solving process is represented as: objective finding, fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding.Divergent and convergent thinkingDivergent thinking and convergent thinking are both related to creativity. Convergent thinking is thinking that proceeds inward or converges on a single answer, that is, it is a unique solution to meet the prescribed criteria. By contrast, divergent thinking is thinking without boundaries and moves outwards from a problem in many directions. Fluency and originality are characters in divergent thinking process, and it also refers to the ability to cope with conflicting idea paradoxes and ambiguity. While convergent thinking applies a greater degree of judgment and narrow focus. Convergent thinkers tend to seek and select the best solution, but the bounded rationality put them in a dilemma reality.Weisberg (1986) argues that divergent thinking is not an important aspect of creativity because creative problem solving does not always require a fresh perspective. In the creative problem solving process, however, each stage involves divergent thinking first and then convergent thinking. Another argument in this field is, most teams do require convergent thinking, but teams tend to focus on convergent thinking at the expense of divergent thinking (Thompson, 2003).Are teams more creative than individuals?There are sayings that ―Two hands are better than one‖, and ―Many hands make light work‖. Most people believe that teams are more creative than individuals, but in fact, it is not always the case. Teams excel at tasks requiring convergent thinking, like military tasks, or a court jury, but in dealing with problems demanding divergent thinking, often referred to as ―think outside the box‖, teams may be not that creative as we expect.Creativity requires diversity of thought and ideas, but diversity also means conflict, which most teams want to avoid at any cost. Team members need to understand and value the diversity within the group and the team itself also needs to manage the diversity positively otherwise it is more likely to fail.Some blocks to creativity in organizations are also impediments to group creativity:1.Emphasis on managerial control — it is more serious in long-lived groups, while short-livedteams have been found to be more creative. Control can stifle creativity. Creative person need more freedom to contribute their novel ideas to the group output.2.Pressure to achieve and do more with fewer resources —R&D departments are oftenpenalised for cutting costs; sales teams are frustrated by continuously increasing sales target;admin staff complain about tight budget. These are things that out of the reach of individual member’s creativity.3.The belief that some people are creative and others are not— though it is quite the truth,this may effect team harmony and inhibit group creativity synergy.Teams also tend to fall into traps, like individual does, when trying to become more creative:1.Identifying the wrong problem — two wrongs can not make one right2.Judging ideas too quickly—people should defer judgment of their own and others’ ideas3.Stopping with the first good idea — especially when the idea is from the group leader orthe expert in the group. This also can discourage their own attempts to creative problem solving.It has been discussed that the social-cognitive effect in teamwork operation and management is the basic problem that cause group-thinking less creative and effective than individuals’. Accordingly, Thompson (2003) listed some major threats to team creativity when using brainstorming in teams, namely, social loafing, conformity, production blocking, and downward norm setting. To some extent this may explain why outstanding salespeople prefer working independently to joining a team, and why good designers insist on a leading role in the project and isolating themselves somewhat, because they believe they can be more creative individually than being with others.West (1990) reports that large teams (more than 12 people) are less creative due to problems with communication and team co-ordination, whereas very small teams (three or two) are inefficient in idea generation because of the lack of diversity. Therefore, a middle-size (around six) heterogeneous team is an advantage for idea generation to avoid ―group thinking‖and meanwhile for smooth implementation.In general, group level creativity studies have focused on the effect of leadership style and cohesiveness between team members (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). Thacker (1997) proposes that training team leaders to exhibit supportive, consultative, or non-controlling communication behaviour will create an environment that fosters creativity and should enhance the creativity efforts of team members. King (1995) suggests organizations could promote creativity in teams by allowing autonomy and that interpersonal skills are more important than technical skills when selecting team members.Thompson (2003) lists ten strategies for team activity building, which all have a strong scientific reach basis, are practical, and reasonable in cost:1.Diversify the team2.Analogical Reasoning3.Brain-writing4.Nominal group technique5.Creating an organizational memory6.Trained Facilitators7.High Benchmarks8.Membership change9.Electronic brainstorming10.Build a playgroundThe ten strategies outlined above can be applied to a wide range of groups in companies in both creative and traditional industries. Next we will exam techniques on this list in a real work situation, and some other foregoing methods will also be referred, meanwhile new problems may emerge when taking actions to building and enhancing team creativity in practice.Implementation of Creativity Enhancement Techniques in PracticeGoldenLeaf Co. is a private manufacturing company that designs and produces tobacco auto-curing machine. I work with the company as a region purchase manager and report to production manager. The purchase team includes other three merchandisers, and we all think that we are a creative team.-First, it is a heterogeneous team that team members have different education background and diverse working experience, which are good for integrating multiple perspectives in problem solving.-When contact a new supplier, we always use the analogy of air conditioner to introduce our tobacco auto-curing machine, and that makes things much easier.-We use brain-writing only in form of mobile text message, or online communication when there are team members on business trip. We once solved a delivery problem by exchanging bunch of ideas via mobile message, but later we could not find from whose mobile the idea was sent out, nor from whose brain it came.-Neither nominal group technique nor anonymous nominal group technique is ever considered in the team, while the standard brainstorming method is often conducted within the departments.-Creating an organization memory is very useful not only for team or organization creativity but mainly for organization management and operations.-As the purchase manager, I am the team leader, and the facilitator. Though I am not an expert in PCB or digital sensors, I still can keep the team on track by properly managing and motivating team members’ expertise. The facilitator needs to be trained with creativity skills so as to facilitate team members and the team at work.-High benchmarks are usually set by senior manages, who believe that high requirement can stimulate more ideas generated, and information about other members’activity level can increase performance. Pressure and competition may encourage creativity, but it is not the way we prefer to use in our team.-As a small group without any membership change within two years, it seems that we likely get stuck in the same old ruts and are becoming less creative due to a sort of cognitive arthritis. We consider to recruit a new staff as new blood to refresh our mind for bettercreative thinking. However the boss may not accept it as a convincing reason. And so far our team has been recognized as being dynamic and creative.-Electronic brainstorming: no idea of it.-Build a playground: not necessary in our case because we work in a same office, and for us the best place for idea generating is the balcony where we usually smoke together.Among these creativity enhancement techniques reviewed above, the anonymous nominal group technique is practised once in R&D department for a group reward issue. The intention is to solving the problem creatively and the method or process is quite challenging for participants, however, surprisingly, the ideas generated are neither novel nor appreciate, for example, one wrote on the paper that ―the reward should be in average share‖, another note was ―ask more from the boss‖. R&D engineers confessed afterwards that their creativity only flourish in the lad. Thus I recommend they can try the CPS process next time to enhance their creativity in dealing with such HR or service complaint issues.Analogical reasoning is the most frequently used method by groups in the company, but before we did not know that it is a creativity enhancement technique. Sales reps use analogy of ―one-snap‖ function of camera to explain our product’s new feature to customers, and engineers train maintenance technician by demonstrating how vegetable being cured in a tobacco curing barn. Though there is argument that applying previously learned knowledge to new situations is difficult for most people, which is known as ―inert knowledge‖ problem, we consider that we are quick learners and utilize this method well for creative problem solving at workplace. And I notice that my ten-year-old son has mastered it by using tactics learnt in chess class to tackle similar situation in computer games, and the former knowledge excels at the latter. This echoes Maslow’s view that creativity is an aspect of human nature.To error is human, and so then, to create is human.References:Amabile, T.M., (1996), ―Assessing the work environment for creativity‖, A cademy of Management JournalAmabile, T.M., (1997), ―Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do‖, California Management Review, 40(1): 39-58Andriopoulos, C. & Lowe, A., (2000), ―Enhancing organizational creativi ty: the process of perpetual challenging‖, Management Decision, 38(10): 734-742Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S., (1993), The Ideal Problem Solver (2nd edition), New York: W.H.FreemanBailin Sharon, (1994), ―Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity‖, Faculty of Education University of Manitoba, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey Cook, P. (1998), ―The creativity advantage m—is your organiz ation the leader of the pack?‖, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30, pp179-84.Egan Kier an, (1992), ―A Very Short History of Imagination‖, Imagination in Teaching and Learning, London, Ontario, Althause PressGilliam, T.K, (1993), ―Managing the power of creativity‖, Bank MarketingGioia, D.A. (1995), ―Contrasts and convergences in creativity:Themes in academic and practitioner views‖, Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Gurteen, D., (1998), ―Knowledge, creativity and innovation‖, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, pp. 5-13Heap, J., (1989), The Management of Innovation and Design, Cassell, LondonKing, N. and Anderson, N., (1995), ―Innovation in Working Groups‖, Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, ChichesterKoestler, A., (1964), The Act of Creation, London: HutchinsonLe Boeuf, M., (1994), Creative Thinking, London: PiatkusLocke, J., (1964), ―An essay concerning human understanding‖, in J.V. Canfield and F.H.Donnell(eds), Readings in the Theory of Knowledge, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Majaro, S. (1988). The Creative Gap. London: LongmanMajaro, S. (1991), The Creative Marketeer, London: Butterworth HeinemannMcAdam, R. & McClelland, J., (2002), ―Individual and team-based idea generation within innovation management: organizational and research agendas‖, European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2):86-97Proctor, T., (2005), Creativity Problem Solving for Management, 2nd ed., Routledge, London and Now York, p.46, p.54, p.17,Thompson, L., (2003), ―Improving the creativity of organizational work groups‖, Academy of Management Executive, 17(1): 96-111Thacker, R., (1997), ―Team leader style: enhancing the creativity of employees in teams‖, Training for Quality, Vol. 5 No. 4Titus, P., (2000), ―Marketing and the creative problem solving process‖, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 225-35Wallas, G. (1926), the Art of Though, London: Jonathan CapeWeisberg, R.W., (1986), Creativity, Genius and Other Myths, New York: W.H. freeman West, M., (1990), ―The social psycholog y of innovation in groups‖, Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, Chichester11。