Creativity and Innovation in the Organization - Essay Example

Reflective Essay: Creativity and Innovation Student name Course name Institution Date of submission Student Number Abstract The paper presents a reflective account that critically provides an analysis of learning and personal development job-related events experienced in the unit. The unit presented an opportunity to experience how creativity calls for different forms of thinking, such as practical, analytic, divergent thinking intelligence. One critical challenge conceived is when innovation is for creativity. This hinders the ability to imagine the right solutions and conceiving irrelevant solutions. In creative problem solving, Osborn-Parnes process is particularly helpful, as it provides a mechanism to envision the right problem, find the right information, explore the problems, generate the right ideas and identify relevant solutions. The two stages of the Osborn-Parnes process that are particularly critical include problem redefinition and idea generation. However, they are vulnerable to creative thinking blocks, which can be resolved using the Five W’s and H model and Classical Brainstorming technique. The two help to identify the right problems, defer judgements, and generate more ideas. Introduction Initially, I assumed that the term innovation and creativity mean the same thing. In fact, I was confused about what contexts each of the two terms could fittingly apply in my organisation. One challenge I particularly experienced was leading my team to generate creative ideas on how our organisation could be transformed to become more eco-friendly. My team mostly confused innovation for creativity. I believe this was a major hindrance to imagining the right solutions. In fact, we ended up selecting the wrong problems and conceiving irrelevant solutions. However, on reflection of lessons on” Mobilising Creativity and Innovation” during this past semester, I have come to understand that the innovation and creativity are differentiated based on what they focus on. In fact, creativity is concerned with developing the potential of one’s mind to freely visualize and imagine new ideas (Fasko 2001). Matthews (2009) agrees with this and adds that such ideas can manifest themselves in many ways, although they usually transform into something that is intangible. I also acknowledge that innovation is concerned with introduction of change into a system that is comparatively stable. In fact, Matthews (2007) asserts that innovation is as well concerned with the work needed to make an idea more feasible. The course unit provided me with an opportunity to experience and to reflect on how creativity calls for different forms of thinking, such as practical, analytic, divergent thinking and intelligence. Two ways of achieving this was through the Five W’s and H model and Classical Brainstorming technique, as I intend to demonstrate. In creative problem solving, one method that was particularly helpful, and which provided a remarkable means to develop an understanding of creativity was the Osborn-Parnes process. The 6-stage process includes mess finding, where we had to envision a problem. In the second stage is data finding, where we had to collect information regarding the envisioned challenge. At the third stage was Problem Finding, where I had to find ideas to solve the problem. At the fourth stage was Idea Finding, where I had to come up with many possible ideas that could solve the problem. At the fifth stage, we had to identify a solution through some evaluative criteria and during the sixth stage, we had actually validated or implement the solution in order to show acceptance of the idea generated (Sousa et al 2011). At all these stages, we encountered several instances where we had to use our imagination to solve an idea. Two stages were particularly critical: problem redefinition (stage 3) and idea generation (stage 4). Stage 3 mainly included boundary examination. However, at the fourth stage, the method that was particularly exhilarating and, in my view, very productive was brainstorming (Isaksen 1998). During creative problem solving, we envisaged several scenarios that triggered our brains to imagine possible solutions to imaginary problems. I remember an instance, where I was compelled to imagine a scenario where the world ran out of oil, and what would be the possible implications. Of course, this is a question I had usually asked myself but had never thought I would one day be put on the spotlight to solve. For the first time, therefore, I was tasked to create solutions. My mind first sprang over to the possible substitutes that could be used instead of oil. I started imagining the possibility of using bio-fuels, solar energy, biogas, and hydropower in this respect. In brief, I had to be creative (Sousa et al 2011). This enabled me to understand creativity in practical terms. In my view, therefore, creativity is an ability to visualize new yet distinctive and imaginative ideas to solve problems. Loewenberger (2013) agrees with this definition. He sees creativity as imagining uniquely imaginative ideas. Okpara (2007) contends that the imagination should be complemented with reasoning. On the whole, I appreciate that creativity was evident everywhere, from infrastructure that could ease traffic, high-rise architectural designs to ease congestion in the cities, as well as fictional story book created purely out of imagination. With this knowledge, I realised that creative thinking at my workplace is often hindered by some factors, which I came to learn are called “blocks to creative thinking.” For instance, I realised that at my organisation, we tended to identify the wrong challenges or opportunities, a factor that Adams (2005) also identified as barrier to creativity. From the course unit, I began to understand that this could mislead the remaining five stages, eventually leading to the wrong ideas and solutions. My view is that creativity needs envisioning solution to an underlying problem, which should be the focus of attention. While brainstorming, I realised that there were some instances where I could come up with ideas and decide to stop at the surface level. This was not helpful, as it stopped the brain from working up better ideas. From this, I realised that researching further into the idea generated is critical. I believe that this is the basis of any empirical research (Sousa et al 2011). While I argue that brainstorming was significant during the lesson, I do not feel that it is, particularly a model means of idea generation because it is emotive. I realised that it has some inherent problems that are particularly demoralising and, therefore, hinder successful idea generation. For instance, while brainstorming, I realised that each member of my group sought the attention of others. Some even attempted to outshine others. Although these may be healthy in creating a competitive environment where one has to think deeper and faster, the major blocks were failure to win the support of others and failure to challenge assumptions. Failure to win the support of others discouraged some members from thinking further. Hence, I believe that creative thinking needs some form of motivation. On the other hand, failure to challenge some assumptions meant that some ideas failed to be vetted. I noted that while some ideas appear to be capable of finding solutions based on how convincingly a brainstormed idea is expressed by a member, it might actually not be practical. Vetting of the ideas is, therefore, critical (Sousa et al 2011). At the workplace, while we have often engaged in brainstorming to generate ideas, it has often been stalled by instances, where people generate many ideas, which are off-topic, and where ideas partially overlap. The ideas expressed are also less straightforward. Therefore, while these ideas contain information needed to solve the problem, they are mostly extraneous or irrelevant information, what Kolfschoten (2011) calls the Coherence Effect. Still, as I learnt from the course unit, several solutions can be used to overcome the creative thinking blocks. The two methods I had an opportunity to experience first-hand at the workplace include the structured technique, such as the Five W’s and H model, which was specifically significant for Problem redefinition at Stage 3 (Gero et al 2012). The second is the Classical Brainstorming technique, which is crucial for Idea Generation at Stage 4. I believed that the Five W’s and H model could solve most of the blocks. At the workplace, we were recently engaged in a meeting to come up with ideas on how to make the organisation more sustainable or eco-friendly. As a team leader in my department, I stated the problem based on the format: “In what ways might (IWWM)” the offices become more sustainable? I later wrote down the list of questions relating to problem. I then asked the members to propose solutions but made sure that I had asked them to withhold their judgements. I then examined each response and later re-examined the responses, which I also encouraged the group members to use as stimuli in generating more provocative problem-statements. I later selected the redefinition that captured the solution for a sustainable organisation. In the end, the Five W’s and H model was efficient and timesaving. It also engaged all members in creative thinking. Classical Brainstorming technique was specifically significant for idea generation. Before the brainstorming session set off, I reminded the members in my team that they should treat all ideas as raw materials that need to be refined, rather than solutions. Two principles prevailed throughout the session: Quantity breeds quality and deferred judgement. I welcomed freewheeling, asked the members to avoid criticism and encourage improvement of ideas (Gobble 2014). Ultimately, I learnt that the Five W’s and H model and Classical Brainstorming technique are helpful for spotting the right problems, deferring judgements, generating more ideas, avoiding emotions due to wanting to win the support of others and ensuring that all assumptions are challenged (Al-khatib, B 2012). Conclusion I was particularly perceptive throughout the entire course unit. I realised that when solving a problem, there were two fundamental ways, and we imagined the possible solutions. The first included a form of thinking relevant for solving precise and straightforward problems whose solutions are definite. This kind of thinking does not involve imagination, and hence is categorised as creative thinking. It is the second form of thinking that is relevant in this regard. This entails the form of thinking relevant for resolving new challenges or abstract problems. One critical challenge conceived is when innovation is for creativity. This hinders the ability to imagine the right solutions and conceiving irrelevant solutions. In creative problem solving, Osborn-Parnes process is particularly helpful as it provides a mechanism to envision the right problem, find the right information, explore the problems, generate the right ideas and identify relevant solutions. The two stages of the Osborn-Parnes process that are particularly critical include problem redefinition and idea generation. However, they are vulnerable to creative thinking blocks, which can be resolved using the Five W’s and H model and Classical Brainstorming technique. The two help to identify the right problems, defer judgements, and generate more ideas. I, therefore, see creative thinking as being complex, which also brings me to the point that some members tended to be more creative than others based on their solution-oriented depths of imagination. Recommendations In the end, I seek to make some recommendations for professional practice. These emerge entirely from my experiential learning. Indeed, these also form the methods I intend to use in future to promote creativity at my workplace. I propose that all processes of idea generation should provide some form of psychological safety or motivation for inducement for more creative ideas. This can be through facilitation interventions and application of technology. This may include setting rules like Osborn’s, which require no criticizing. Additionally, there is a need to use structures. For instance, providing a structure to brainstorm assists in scoping the brainstorm. Eventually, people will get to think within the context of the problem, which saves time (Hesse & Hentzen 2002). The group also gets to gain a general idea and shared understanding of ideas generated. Next, seeding should be used to motivate creativity. This requires prompting the members with perspectives to the problem. This prevents likely distraction that occurs when ideas already imagined still have to be recaptured. This is particularly so in instances where new ideas are needed rather than already conceived solutions. It is also critical to set standards, or quality constraints to the generated ideas. When people in a group brainstorm ideas, they need to interact, and to develop a shared appreciation and understanding of the ideas. Hence, setting quality constraints to suggestions, like ‘ideas for a new product, where lists of new products are written, as well their functions and targeted market, is critical. References Adams, K 2005, “The Sources of Innovation and Creativity," A Paper Commission by the National Centre on Education and the Economy for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce Sept 2005 Al-khatib, B 2012, "The Effect of Using Brainstorming Strategy in Developing Creative Problem Solving Skills among Female Students in Princess Alia University College," American International Journal of Contemporary Research, vol2 no 10, pp.29-38 Fasko, D 2001, "Education and Creativity," Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4, pp.317–327 Gero, J, Jiang, H & Williams, C 2012, "Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured and structured concept generation creativity techniques," viewed 28 April 2015, Gobble, M 2014, "Beyond Brainstorming," Research-Technology Management, vol 57 No 2, pp. Hesse, D & Hentzen, A 2002, "Reverse Problem Based Learning (R-P BL)," ASCP Journal vol3 no 33, pp.218-221 Isaksen, S 1998, "A Reveiw of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry," viewed 28 April 2015, Kan, J, Gero, J & Tang, H 2010, "Measuring Cognitive Design Activity Changes During an Industry Team Brainstorming Session," Design Computing and Cognition DCC’10, pp.1-20 Kolfschoten, G 2011, "Cognitive Load in Collaboration - Brainstorming," Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011, p.1-9 Loewenberger, P 2013, "The Role of HRD in Stimulating, Supporting, and Sustaining Creativity and Interaction," Human Resource Development Review vol 12 no 4, pp. 422– 455 Matthews, J 2007, “Creativity and Entrepreneurship: Potential Partners or Distant Cousins?” In Chapman, Ross, Eds. Proceedings Managing Our Intellectual and Social Capital: 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference, pp. 1-17, Sydney, Australia. Matthews, J 2009, “Creativity, design and entrepreneurship : management education and development for innovation,” In Solomon, G. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2009 Academy of Management Annual Meeting : Green Management Matters, Academy of Management, Hyatt Regency Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Okpara, F 2007, "The Value of Creativity and Innovation in Entrepreneurship," Journal of Asia Enterprenuership and Sustainability vol 3 no 2, pp.1-14 Sousa, F & Monteiro, I and Pellissier, R 2011, “Methods to Improve Creativity and Innovation: The Effectiveness of Creative Problem Solving,” In A. Mesquita (Eds.) Technology for Creativity and Innovation: Tools, Techniques and Applications, IGI Global pp. 136-155 Read More