|
by Kal Bishop, MBA
Leaders, consultants and managers must be competent in at least
thirteen domains to even begin
effectively managing creativity and
innovation.
a) The difference between creativity and innovation. Often used
interchangeably, the two must be thought of as separate and
distinct. One definition for creativity is that it is problem
identification and idea generation, whilst innovation is best
described as idea selection, development and commercialization.
These definitions alone imply at least six competencies (including
one holistic). At a minimum, the differences mean that, at each
stage, varying skills, processes and structures are required.
b) The size and richness of idea pools. Initially creative
thinking is used to generate an idea pool and then critical thinking
reduces those ideas to feasible ones. To maximize the quantity and
quality of the idea pool, a conscious application of processes and
techniques must be applied. Some of these include
i) Using a variety of stimuli and frameworks to open up pathways
ii) Not stopping when a good idea seems to present itself iii)
Consciously stimulating change in direction iv) Distinguishing
between the numbers of ideas produced, their novelty, diversity and
frequency of production.
c) Creative types. There is common belief that some people just
are more creative and certain theorists argue for creativity
characteristics such as tolerance of ambiguity and intolerance for
conformity. However, traits are notoriously difficult to detect and
not stable nor transferable across situations. Also, motivation is
thought to be more important than traits – this is similar to
possessing high intelligence - one must be motivated to improve and
apply it.
d) Learning versus Talent. Can creativity be learned and
developed or is it a natural talent or gift? The best way to answer
this question is to investigate whether creativity improves with
practice. The experience curve, automisation, learning theories and
the experiences of practitioners suggest that people do get better
at generating more, better, diverse and novel ideas - but there are
caveats, such as an increase in path dependency and peaks and
troughs in motivation.
e) Motivation. Someone with natural ability or placed in the
right environment may not take advantage of it unless motivated.
Intrinsically motivated individuals tend to expend more effort and
create more output and synergistic extrinsic motivation better
enables a person to complete an endeavour. On the other hand,
non-synergistic extrinsic motivation leads to a person feeling
controlled and manipulated and is incompatible with intrinsic
motivation. Specific motivators such as material reward, progress to
the ideal self, self-determination, self-evaluation, feedback,
enjoyment, competency expansion, recognition and feasibility can all
be quantitatively measured and monitored.
f) Organizational Culture. We can all be more creative, so what
is stopping us? Often people complain of some degree of evaluation
apprehension – this manifests itself in many ways but two of the
most common are a fear of seeming unintelligent or unoriginal. Some
cultures are more risk averse than others, others do not manage
competition well and yet others engender friction by misallocating
resources.
g) Organizational structure. Many theories argue that certain
structures, such as hierarchical and mechanistic, hinder creativity
and innovation. Whilst these theories generally tend towards
validity, there are many reasons why a business has a particular organizational
structure - history, logistics, market segmentation,
product line, strategy and so forth – therefore it is unreasonable
to ask a firm to change it. Ultimately, what managers need, is a
knowledge of the properties of a fostering structure so that they
may incorporate those elements into their existing one.
This field yields much interesting data. For example, many
respondents argued that all structures, even those so-called flat
structures, are in reality hierarchical.
Some very simple changes can be implemented. These include:
i) Direct communication links to decision makers. ii)
Cross-divisional information flow. iii) Tangible progress of ideas.
h) Group Structure. There is much confusion as which group
structure (or combination of structures) maximizes creative output.
Workshop leaders randomly seem to make people work alone, in pairs,
or in small or large groups. Each combination has strong arguments
for and against:
i) The individual working alone can be very creative; after all,
many people who are acknowledged to have made great contributions to
society have worked alone. ii) Pairs reduce the path dependency and
enhance the intellectual cross-pollination that limits the
individual. iii) Many successful enterprises grow rapidly in the
early stages, when there are only a small team of people working
together. iv) Large groups benefit from massive intellectual
cross-pollination but introduce politicking, core and peripheral
groups, a dilution of ideas and more negatives.
i) The degree of knowledge input has a significant effect on
output. There are three types of knowledge input:
i) Tacit knowledge. That experience which results from a natural
life-long interest and curiosity in many subjects and experiences.
ii) Depth versus Breadth. Can someone with limited knowledge of a
field make a significant contribution to it? Does excess knowledge
cause blinkered vision? iii) Networks and Collaboration. Importing
competencies from networks and collaboration overcomes path
dependency and parochialism and allows greater frame breaking.
j) Radical versus Incremental productivity. Radical /
transformational / disruptive creativity is very much glamorized.
But is this what is required most often? Is radical really radical
or the result of incremental improvement? How is radical defined? If
we want a radical idea as opposed to an incremental change, what are
the implications? Incremental and radical creativity require vastly
different structures, processes, skills and resources.
k) Structure and goals. Many creative people object to structure
and goals - they argue they interfere with thought processes and
originality; there is a very fine line between structure and
conformity. But structure and goals help set the boundaries of a
problem and produce more output that when an individual is simply
allowed to "do their best." How many people have a half
finished novel or screenplay in their office?
l) Process. It seems somehow incongruous that creativity can be a
process. Ask many practitioners what process they engage in and they
may well deny there is one. But if you examine the activities of
many creative people, common patterns of behavior emerge. This
common process makes insight / eureka / the aha! experience more
likely. The process includes identifying and intensely investigating
the problem, forcing production of ideas using creative versus
critical thinking and other techniques; seeking stimuli and allowing
the unconscious mind to take over by engaging in rest and unrelated
activities.
m) Valuation. How do we value an idea, so as to decide how to
invest resources? Even a painter who creates for pure pleasure has
to decide which one of his ideas is best; there is always a value
system and (some argue) always some sort of promotional instinct.
There are decisions as to whether you are looking for applied
creativity and who the consumer is; how do they benefit? There is no
sure fire way to evaluate perfectly because there is no sure fire
route to commercial success. But we can benchmark against those
types of ideas that have succeeded in the past; firms must make a
decision as to their strategic, competence and technical fit; there
are comparisons against rivals and practical impediments; how do we
make the go or kill decision and what are the trade-offs?
|
