The Concept of Creativity - Case Study Example

Introduction: Creativity is a very unique quality that distinguishes human beings from the animal kingdom. The ability of Bill Gates to develop Microsoft packages, Steve Jobs to come up with a personal computer, Alexander Bell to create the telephone all depicts the power of creativity and innovation. However, despite growing research and interest on this concept of creativity, academic experts are unable to come up with a generally acceptable standard for defining the term creativity (Piffer, 2012). As a matter of fact, many writers normally come up with their own definition of creativity. They arrive at these definitions based on the circumstance surrounding their problems or situation. For example, creativity may be a situation whereby an individual comes with a new project or invention such as a telephone. Under this circumstance, creativity is equated to an invention. Another example is that creativity is a situation whereby an individual improves on the existing machine or programme. An example is improving a mobile phone gadget by installing features that can give it the capability of accessing the internet. Bissola and Imperatori (2011) may explain this as an innovation, but other academic experts may denote that this is an example of creativity. It is therefore accurate to denote that based on the circumstance under consideration, people have different meanings to this concept of creativity. Most academic experts explain that creativity and innovation go hand in hand. This is because they both involve improving a substance, for purposes of catering or satisfying a particular need. Bissola and Imperatori (2011) defines creativity as the tendency of generating or recognizing alternatives, ideas, or possibilities, with the intention of communicating, entertaining and solving problems. In as much as creativity is always equated with innovation, the two are different. This is because creativity is an idea aimed at improving or developing a product. Innovation on the other hand is acting on the idea, and turning it to a product or substance, and providing it to the market. Based on these facts, it is possible to denote that creativity always comes with innovation. Despite the two being different, they require each other for a product or substance to come out of the process. Jeanes (2006) explains that another definition of innovation, is introducing a new product or substance in the market. According to this definition, the product or substance that has been introduced to the market must be better than the previous product. This means that innovation aims at improving an existent product. This is therefore a narrow concept when compared to creativity. This is because creativity would involve coming up with an idea that would make it possible for people to be innovative, and also inventive (Ortt and Duin, 2008). On this basis, where creativity does not exist, then innovation is not there. It is the nature of human beings that makes them to feel that they are not creative enough (Piffer, 2012). This is because there exists very many myths and mis-understandings that fail to provide a convincing definition on this concept of creativity and innovation. It is a proven fact that creativity amongst people is a very complex process, and it is rare to find it in an individual. Despite this complexity of creativity, there are certain myths that have been created for purposes of defining creativity (Epstein, Kaminaka, Phan and Uda, 2013). This paper aims at challenging some of these commonly held myths that tend to define the concept of creativity. Myths on Creativity: There are seven commonly held myths concerning creativity. The following are the myths and an explanation on why it is not necessary for an individual to believe them. The smarter an individual is, the more creative that individual becomes. This phrase gives a suggestion that there is a direct link between creativity and intelligence. According to this phrase, it is possible to assert that intelligence can also be equated to academic performance. This is because people who have succeeded in education are always regarded as smart and intelligent (Thomas, 2013). However, this is a misconception. Evidence suggests that an individual must not be smart, to be creative and innovative. A good example is Alexander Graham Bell. The education back ground of Mr. Bell is not good (Bissola and Imperatori, 2011). As a young person, Bell was able to receive his early education at home. Later on, he was enrolled to study at the Royal High School, situated in Scotland. His academic records are not satisfactory, and this is because they are marked with absenteeism, and poor grades. He treated most subjects with indifference, and he was not a fun of schooling. Based on these facts, it is possible to denote that Alexander Graham Bell was not a smart person. This is because he was a poor performer in school. Despite his poor grades, Alexander Graham Bell is considered as one of the most successful inventors of all time (Meng, 2005). As noted earlier, it is impossible to become an inventor or an innovator, without having a creative mind. The most important invention by Mr. Bell is the telephone. Due to this invention, Mr. Bell was able to change the manner in which people communicate for many generations. This invention also turned him to a very wealthy man (Ortt and Duin, 2008). Based on this example, it is correct to assert that it is not mandatory for an individual to be smart, for him or her to be creative. However, there is a need of an individual to be hard working, and skillful in identifying the various needs of the society. Mr. Bell was a successful innovator because he was very determined and attentive to detail, in any activity that he was engaging in. This is the reason he was able to come up with the telephone, despite numerous attempts and failures. Those who justify that an individual has to be smart, so that he or she is creative assert that the most successful innovators or inventors were smart people (Bissola and Imperatori, 2011). They gave an example of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and Jack Zuckerberg, the founder of face book. They assert that this people were enrolled in American prestigious Universities, before dropping out to pursue their interests or vision. The mere fact that they were enrolled in Ivy colleges is an indication that they are smart people, and hence it is their intelligence that propelled them to success. It is important to understand that intelligence is not the only ingredient to a successful innovator or creative thinker. There must be a lot of hard work, persistence, and patience for an individual to succeed. These are the traits that Steve Jobs and Mr. Alexander Bell had, despite their poor academic records. Creativity normally occurs outside circumstance and time. According to this concept, creativity is an issue that is magical, and supernatural. However, this myth fails to accommodate the creative process as a continuous dynamic process, which is linked to various domains of knowledge. It is this flow, that exists between the thought of an individual and the changing social context that innovators are able to refine and develop their ideas. This is an essential requirement for any creative thoughts to emerge (Bissola and Imperatori, 2011). A company such as Samsung has a research and development center. This center has the responsibility of carrying out a research on the various needs of their target market, and coming with creative ideas on how to satisfy those needs. The research and Development center of Samsung is one of its important offices. This is because it occasionally comes up with ideas on how to improve the products of the organization. This is through extensive research (Ortt and Duin, 2008). Other researcher such as the Wright Brothers, the inventors of Aero planes and Alexander Bell were involved a series of experiments and research for purposes of coming up with ideas that could help them improve on their inventions and innovations (Dyer and Song, 1998). For example, Alexander Bell was able to come up with the telephone invention, while working at his Volta laboratory. Because there is a need of becoming creative, almost all multi-national companies have a research and development department. This department plays a critical role in coming up with ideas that the company needs to implement for purposes of gaining a competitive advantage over its rivals. This includes companies such as Apples, Microsoft, Coca Cola, BMW, etc (Meng, 2005). Based on these facts, it is accurate to denote that creativity is a systematic process, and it is not magical. This is the reason inventers such as Mr. Bell and the Wright Brothers failed on numerous occasions, before making it right in their inventions. From these examples, we can denote that creativity is a process, and it is not magical, as this myth asserts. Creative people are normally high rollers. Under this myth, creative people have to take calculated risks for purposes of achieving their intentions or ambitions. This assertion is not true, basically because if people were taking calculated risks, then they would not be creative or inventers. Take for instance the Wright brothers and their inventions of an aero plane (Piffer, 2012). These brothers jumped into the idea that it is possible for man to fly, and hence they embarked on a series of experiments and trials to make this into a reality. Had these brothers taken a calculated risk, then chances are high that they would not have engaged in experiments aimed at making an aero plane. This is therefore an indication that to be creative, it is not a must for an individual to take calculated risks. This would act as a determent in their ability to think and come up with a creative idea (Epstein, Kaminaka, Phan and Uda, 2013). This situation is better depicted in the case of Alexander Graham Bell, during his visit to Joseph Henry, a famous scientist of the time. When Mr. Bell told him that he does not have the knowledge of coming up with a telephone, Mr. Henry told him to stop thinking, and get the knowledge. This was a motivation to Mr. Bell, and he immediately embarked on a process of getting the necessary knowledge required to make the telephone (Richards, 1990). Creativity is an act that is effortless. According to this myth, a creative idea is effortless and easy. However, this assertion is not true. This is because it takes a lot of efforts and hard work for purposes of coming up with a creative idea, and implementing the idea to come up with an improved product. Take for example the iPad products of Apples. For the company to come up with these innovations, it had to spend millions of dollars in research. O much time was also spent for purposes of coming up with these products. This is an indication that creativity is not an effortless process, and there is a need of putting a lot of resources, time, and hard work in this process. Jeanes (2006) explains that it is a misconception when an individual denotes that creativity is an effortless endeavor. Those who believe in such a fact think that creativity is about thinking. This is not true, mainly because creativity is more than thoughts, and it involves research. This is a more tedious process. Creativity normally comes from eccentric personalities. Under this concept, creativity is normally linked to a personality, as opposed to an idea or product. This assertion is wrong, and mainly because creativity normally arise out of the need to satisfy a particular need, or improve on the product that the company offers. Most companies are always creative, because of their desire to satisfy the needs of the market. This is the reason companies such as Samsung are developing smart phones, with the intention of capturing the demands of smart phones (Piffer, 2012). Companies are constantly innovative, not because of their desire to satisfy the needs of a manger or leading personality, but because they aim at achieving a competitive advantage over their rival companies. New products are constantly coming to the market, and this is because of the creativity of industries, or companies. In as much as personalities are not the main drivers of creativity, they play an influential (Yi and Hu, 2013). Take for example Steve Jobs. Before coming to Apples, the company was performing poorly, and was not involved in producing new substances. However, Steve Jobs revolutionalized the company, and its members of staff become creative (Piffer, 2012). However, before Apples developed any products, the company had to look at the needs of the market, and thereafter create products aimed at satisfying these needs. Therefore, it is satisfaction of the needs of customers which is the main driver of creativity, as opposes to the existence of a strong charismatic leader. Developing new ideas is a difficult part in this process of creativity. This concept is wrong, mainly because there are a variety of techniques and procedures that can help people come up with new ideas and concepts. However, the most difficult part is the identification of ideas that have a high value to an organization or a company. The out-put of creativity is always good. According to this myth, the output that normally arises out of creativity is considered as good. Take for instance the development of telephones, and computers. These are electronic gadgets that have emanated from creativity. These gadgets play a role in improving the manner in which communication occurs in the world. Based on these facts, the products of creativity are good. However, not all products of creativity are good (Meng, 2005). This is because some products may be used to do harm as opposed to good. For example the development of guns is an innovation that is doing harm. These weapons are dangerous because they are used to kill and maim people. Furthermore, the development of nuclear weapons is an example of a creativity that can cause mass destruction. Conclusion: By analyzing and tackling these myths, it is possible to denote that we can be moving closer to understanding this concept of creativity. Coming up with ideas normally takes place within a social context, and it is linked to a domain of knowledge and understanding. People require a certain percentage of intelligence, take risks, and be persistent for purposes of ensuring that they succeed in being creative. Furthermore, it is important to assert that it is not the generation of new ideas that is important under this concept of creativity. However, it is the translation of these ideas into a tangible innovation or creation that matters. This notion of creativity is a recent development. This is specifically because in the previous times, creativity was always linked to individuals or personalities. On a historical perspective, people used to view creative individuals as lone geniuses, who worked extremely hard to come up with an invention. In the modern times, there is a general consensus that creative people should not work alone, but rather as a gift that should exist in all professions. Theories that explain creativity and innovation emerged when people began moving away from viewing creativity as an influence of personalities, to viewing creativity as a process that is influenced to serving the needs of a target population. Bibliography: Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: “Afterview”; for CRJ Issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 300-323Top o Bottom of Form Jeanes, E. (2006). Resisting Creativity, Creating the New. A Deleuzian Perspective on Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 127-134. Top of FormBottom of Form Bissola, R., & Imperatori, B. (2011). Organizing Individual and Collective Creativity:Flying in the Face of Creativity Clichés. Creativity and Innovation Management, 77-89Top of Form Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2Top of For Bottom of Form Dyer, B., & Song, X. (1998). Innovation Strategy and Sanctioned Conflict: A New Edge in Innovation? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 505-519. Top of FormBottom of Form Meng, H. (2005). Innovation cluster as the national competitiveness tool in the innovation driven economy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 104-104.Bottom of Form Ortt, J., & Duin, P. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 522-538. Thomas, S. (2013). Making a space: Transliteracy and creativity. Digital Creativity, 182-190. Yi, X., & Hu, W. (2013). Science Creativity and Art Creativity: Priming Effect and Domain Influences. Advances in Psychological Science, 22-30. Bottom of Form Epstein, R., Kaminaka, K., Phan, V., & Uda, R. (2013). How is Creativity Best Managed? Some Empirical and Theoretical Guidelines. Creativity and Innovation Management, 359-374. Read More