The paper 'Theories of Creativity and the Creative Problem Solving Process " is a perfect example of business coursework. Creativity within the framework of a knowledge-based organization or economy stretches beyond the chain or linear linkage models that have been used in the creativity theories to explain creativity process in the organization (Bhagat and Black, 2010). This argument confirms to Chemers (2012) definition of creativity within the realm of modern organizations. He looks at creativity as the result of cumulative but dynamic interaction and learning process that involves managers within the organisations and the stakeholders.
Conversely, integrating theories of creativity as they have been recently postulated by contemporary scholars, creativity means a social, spatially embedded, interactive learning process that managers use to solve problems institutions face (Barsh, et al. , 2008; Daily and Dalton, 2003). Integrating this definition with theories such as divergent and convergent thinking, it is apparent that for managers to find the effectiveness of creativity in the process of solving organizational problems, such theories and or creativity approaches as may be adopted by managers, cannot be understood independently of the organizational and cultural context.
This is to mean that creativity must work with theoretical underpinnings. This is the point of departure in this assessment---critically comparing two creative theories (whole brain model and Walla’ s model of the creative process) with an aim of assessing how the theoretical approaches can effectively provide impetus and or solutions to problems and challenges managers and organisations face. When this assessment looks at challenges that organisations faced prior to and immediately after the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, there is no doubt that creativity is a core driver for valuation, growth and performance.
This is what is postulated by the whole-brain model theory. That is, there are three distinct building blocks for creativity that managers aiming at averting problems like the one witnessed during the cited financial crisis could do to avoid. The first building block is to formally do the integration of creativity into the strategic management agenda. For instance, the proximate cause of the credit crisis (which this assessment considers being distinct from the housing crisis) came as a result of the interplay between two choices made by banks---something committed by managers who were not creative enough.
This is when the integration of creativity into the strategic management agenda becomes a priority and whole-brain model. When managers take this approach, creativity is managed, tracked and even measured as a core factor of the organization growth. The second building block as postulated by the same theory is that for managers to be creative in the wake of organizations challenges there need to be the creation of conditions that allows dynamic innovations networks to emerge and thrive.
This building block can help managers become creative in the wake of problems organisations face with respect to corporate governance practices concerning listed companies. The point is, just like the case of Coca-Cola Company in 2009 there has been the ascendancy of financial markets and the intellectual domination as posited by the agency theory into an almost obsessive concern for the issues related to accountability and controls that are involved in the dispersal of ownership of the Company and a rigid focus on the mechanisms that orientated duties of the directors of the Company in light of the theory and still had some connectedness with powers of shareholders and directors (D’ Amato and Burke, 2008).
While managers faced challenges such as directors tending to be self-interested and to some extend deviate from acts that benefit residual claimants, the theory of whole-brain with its second building block suggests that there ought to be dynamic innovations networks especially well-established companies such as Coca-Cola having share ownership held and managerial actions attempting to depart from those needed to maximize shareholder returns (Gee, 2010).
Barsh, J, Capozzi, M.M . & Davidson, J. (2008) Leadership and Innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2008, No 1, p 37-47.
Basadur, M. & Gelade, G. (2006). The role of knowledge management in the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 1, 45-61.
Bhagat, S. and Black B. (2010). “The Uncertain Relationship between Board Composition and Firm Performance”, The Business Lawyer, 54, 3: 921-963.
Boussouara, M. and D. Deakins: 2000, “Trust and Acquisition of Knowledge from Non Executive Directors by High Technology Entrepreneurs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6, 4: 204-226.
Chemers, M. 2012. Efficacy and Effectiveness: Interpreting Models of Leadership and Intelligence. In R. Riggio, S. Murphy, and F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership. (pp.139-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daily, C. M. and D. R. Dalton: 2003, “Dollars and Sense: The Path to Board Independence”, Journal of Business Strategy, 24, 3: 41-43.
D’Amato, A. & Burke, M. J. (2008). Psychological and organizational climate research:
Contrasting perspectives and research traditions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 1, 1-4.
Gee, S. (2006) Technology transfer, innovation and international competitiveness. New York: John Wiley.
Hartel, J., Schmidt, F. & Keyes, L. (2009). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship with business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies (205-224). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Proctor, T. 2005. Creative problem solving for managers (4th eds). Routledge: London. This textbook is available from the University Co-op bookshop.