managing creativity nicolae_moulder.pdf

Managing Creativity: ones own and other peoples

ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURETI

Mariana NICOLAE James MOULDER

Managing Creativity: ones own and other peoples

Editura ASE Bucureti

2010

Copyright 2010, Editura ASE Toate drepturile asupra acestei ediii sunt rezervate editurii. Editura ASE Piaa Roman nr. 6, sector 1, Bucureti, Romnia cod 010374 www.ase.ro www.editura.ase.ro [email protected]

ISBN 978-606-505-376-2 Editura ASE Tehnoredactor: Carmen Nica Coperta: Simona Buoi

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei NICOLAE, MARIANA

Managing Creativity: ones own and other peoples / Mariana Nicolae, James Moulder. - Bucureti : Editura ASE, 2010 Bibliogr.

ISBN 978-606-505-376-2 I. Moulder, James 65.012.4

For all who wish to have thoughts they haven't had before.

About the authors Professor Mariana Nicolae holds a university degree in English literature and linguistics from the University of Bucharest, Romania, a Ph.D. in Education from the same university, and is currently working on a doctoral degree in Management. Besides teaching, research and academic management, her current duties involve institutional building, coaching and mentoring, networking with people and organizations, publishing, traveling both in-country and abroad to attend conferences and seminars and organizing (inter)national conferences in Romania. www.mibcom.ase.ro [email protected] James Moulder was educated at Rhodes University in South Africa and Linacre College in the University of Oxford. His majors were theology and philosophy. He has taught various business related subjects in MBA programs in Australia, China, England, Indonesia, New Zealand, Romania, South Africa and Spain. He retired in 2006 and lives in Melbourne, Australia. His present research is focused on reading Confucius in business environments and exploring organizational climates that encourage and support creative thinking. In South Africa and Australia, his consulting work involved working with multinationals on scenario thinking and corporate creativity, as well as on general management training in creative thinking, problem solving and decision making. Moulder is also a poet and currently writes under the inspiration of Romanian poets, including Eminescu. Iulian Lixandru is a graduate of the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies. He has a bachelors degree from the Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics and a Masters Degree in International Business Communication obtained from the Faculty of International Business and Economics. Iulians professional interests revolve around ERPs and business intelligence systems, communication and leadership.

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 11 PART ONE Managing One's Own Creativity..................................................... 13 1 Adaptors and Innovators .......................................................................... 15 2 The Four Step Creative Process ............................................................... 19 3 Brainstorming........................................................................................... 22 4 Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for Exploring an Idea................... 25 5 Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis for Achieving a Goal........................ 29 6 Software for Creative Thinking ............................................................... 33 PART TWO Managing Other People's Creativity.............................................. 37 7 When does an organization's culture encourage creative thinking? ........ 39

7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's criteria ........................................... 40 7.2 Teresa Amabile's criteria .................................................................. 43 7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's criteria.............................. 47

8 How may organizational design encourage creative thinking?................ 50 8.1 Blanchard and Waghorn's Structural Model..................................... 51 8.2 Moulder's Cascading Model ............................................................. 55

An appendix from the Center for Creative Leadership The Innovation Assessment Process............................................................. 65 Conclusion................................................................................................... 67 Postscript Managing Creativity in Higher Education Institutions ............................... 69

10

PART THREE A Guide To The Literature Behind The Book............................ 75 1 Adaptors and Innovators .......................................................................... 77 2 The Four Step Creative Process ............................................................... 83 3 Brainstorming........................................................................................... 89 4 Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for Exploring an Idea................... 95 5 Kurt Lewin's Force Field........................................................................ 104 6 Software for Creative Thinking ............................................................. 108 7 When does an organization's culture encourage creative thinking? ...... 117

7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's criteria.......................................... 117 7.2 Teresa Amabile's criteria................................................................. 119 7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's criteria ............................ 122

8 How may an organization's design encourage creative thinking? ......... 124 8.1 Blanchard and Waghorn's Structural Model................................... 124 8.2 Moulder's Cascading Model ........................................................... 125

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 11 PART ONE Managing One's Own Creativity..................................................... 13 1 Adaptors and Innovators .......................................................................... 15 2 The Four Step Creative Process ............................................................... 19 3 Brainstorming........................................................................................... 22 4 Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for Exploring an Idea................... 25 5 Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis for Achieving a Goal........................ 29 6 Software for Creative Thinking ............................................................... 33 PART TWO Managing Other People's Creativity.............................................. 37 7 When does an organization's culture encourage creative thinking? ........ 39

7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's criteria ........................................... 40 7.2 Teresa Amabile's criteria .................................................................. 43 7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's criteria.............................. 47

8 How may organizational design encourage creative thinking?................ 50 8.1 Blanchard and Waghorn's Structural Model..................................... 51 8.2 Moulder's Cascading Model ............................................................. 55

An appendix from the Center for Creative Leadership The Innovation Assessment Process............................................................. 65 Conclusion................................................................................................... 67 Postscript Managing Creativity in Higher Education Institutions ............................... 69

10

PART THREE A Guide To The Literature Behind The Book............................ 75 1 Adaptors and Innovators .......................................................................... 77 2 The Four Step Creative Process ............................................................... 83 3 Brainstorming........................................................................................... 89 4 Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for Exploring an Idea................... 95 5 Kurt Lewin's Force Field........................................................................ 104 6 Software for Creative Thinking ............................................................. 108 7 When does an organization's culture encourage creative thinking? ...... 117

7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's criteria.......................................... 117 7.2 Teresa Amabile's criteria................................................................. 119 7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's criteria ............................ 122

8 How may an organization's design encourage creative thinking? ......... 124 8.1 Blanchard and Waghorn's Structural Model................................... 124 8.2 Moulder's Cascading Model ........................................................... 125

Introduction

Tom Peters likes to ask an audience whether anyone present knows what it means to 'manage' the human imagination: So far, not a single hand has gone up, including mine. I don't know what it means to manage the human imagination either, but I do know that imagination is the main source of value in the new economy. And I know we better figure out the answer to my question quickly.

Tom Peters, Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations, New York: Vintage, 1994, page 12.

Because creativity is driven by the imagination by focusing on what could be the case rather than on what is the case, our book picks up Tom's challenge in the context of managing our own and other people's creativity. The first part of the book is about managing one's own creativity about managing one's imagination about enriching and encouraging it. It involves understanding and honouring the difference between adaptors and innovators, as well as a four step creative process. It also involves mastering brainstorming and three of the tools that are driven by it Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats, Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis and software that stimulates creative thinking. The second part of the book is about managing other people's creativity about managing other people's imagination about creating a climate and a culture that stimulates and encourages creative thinking. It has a theoretical and a practical dimension. The theory covers three sets of criteria for assessing the extent to which an organization's culture encourages creativity. The practical dimension explores two ways of designing organizations in which creative thinking is required. One of them is rooted in the idea of managing an organization's present and future simultaneously. The other was created by us and employs the idea of coaching for creativity. Like the first model, it has been tested in management environments and found to work. The third part of the book is about the literature that helped to create part one and part two. It's about the ideas that shaped our ideas about the ideas that helped us to figure out how to manage our own and other people's creativity our own and other people's imagination. There are summaries of

12

the books and articles that inspired each chapter of the book, as well as questions for discussion and further study. There's also an appendix on a process for assessing an organization's capacity for innovation. Finally, there's a postscript some reflections on how the ideas in our book could be used in higher education institutions. Like any book that's about acquiring or refining a skill, the readers who try to implement our suggestions are the ones who will get the best return on their investment. A good place to begin is with the questions at the end of each chapter questions for reflection and discussion which could lead to experimentation. May you benefit as much from trying out our ideas as we have benefited from experimenting with them and sharing them with you.

Mariana Nicolae and James Moulder

PART ONE Managing One's Own Creativity

This part of the book is about two theories and four tools. One of the theories is about two ways of thinking creatively: inside the box and outside the box. The other is about a four step process for thinking creatively, a process that creative thinkers honour. The tools are brainstorming, Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for exploring an idea, Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis for achieving a goal and software that stimulates creativity. Please remember that it's impossible to acquire or refine a skill by reading a book about it. One has to try what the book suggests. And, like when one learned to drive a car, one has to try again when one stalls the engine or floods the ignition system or forgets to put on the handbrake.

Chapter 1 Adaptors and Innovators

People have different creative thinking styles:

some prefer to focus their creativity on how to improve what they've got.

some prefer to focus their creativity on how to replace what they've got with something else.

So, a good first step towards managing your creativity is to try to decide which you prefer:

to try to improve what you've got? to try to replace what you've got with something else?

KAI is a self-report questionnaire that may assist you to make this decision. The process is straightforward:

first you complete the KAI questionnaire with a certified practitioner or you complete an approximation to it like the one in this chapter.

then you validate what it tells you about your creative thinking style by asking your family, friends and colleagues at work to what extent they agree with the result you got.

More about KAI It yields scores between High Adaptation and High Innovation. The range of scores is 32 to 160, with a theoretical mean of 96. Although small differences can be quite noticeable, most of us are not at the extremes. Nevertheless, most of us are either Adaptors, who prefer 'to make improvements in existing ways of doing things', or Innovators, who prefer 'to do things differently'.

Range of KAI Scores High Adaptors High Innovators

32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160

67% of people are in this range

see Kirton, 1994: 1419

Managing Creativity 16

Kirton equates the more adaptive style with (active, creative) attempts to maintain a paradigm; and the more innovative style with (active, creative) attempts to shift a paradigm. But neither style is better than the other; depending on the circumstances, each has benefits and drawbacks. Cultures show no variation in Adaptor Innovator distribution. In business or industry, there are roughly equal numbers of Adaptors and Innovators. Companies may be skewed in one direction or another; for example, at the board level. Departments usually are skewed; and smaller units are nearly always skewed. This creates differences in climate, policy, operation, tolerance, and understanding between one organizational element and another. A six step approximation to the KAI questionnaire

1. From each of the 13 pairs, tick the statement which you think comes closest to describing you.

2. If there are cases in which you can't choose, that's OK. 2. Simply ignore that pair.

3. Add the ticks in each column to see whether you are more likely to be an Adaptor or an Innovator.

4. Share your results with people who know you, members of your family, friends and colleagues at work and ask them to what extent they think your profile is a good description of what you do. The more they agree with the result you have, the more likely it is to be reliable.

5. If you end up with the same number of ticks in each column, use the conversations with people who know you to help you decide whether your creative thinking style is adaptation or innovation.

6. If you still can't decide which option you prefer, simply accept that you don't have a strong preference for either of the options.

Adaptors are more likely than Innovators

Innovators are more likely than Adaptors

[] - to prefer improving the existing structures over mould breaking change

[] - to prefer mould breaking change over improving the existing structures

Managing One's Own Creativity 17

Adaptors are more likely than Innovators

Innovators are more likely than Adaptors

[] - to start work only on projects that can be completed

[] - to attach more value to thinking up new projects than to implementing them

[] - to care about the consequences of their actions

[] - to neglect the consequences of their actions

[] - to accept change that's likely to improve or strengthen the status quo

[] - to see the status quo as needing a fairly complete transformation

[] - to be seen as methodical and prudent

[] - to be seen as adventurous and willing to take risks

[] - to canvas support for changes before proposing them

[] - to assume that ideas for radical change are self evidently valuable

[] - to attach a high value to being efficient within a system

[] - to question basic assumptions about any problem

[] - to resist 'sticking your neck out' against prevailing opinion

[] - to be able to live with rejection and hostility

[] - to reject, or be very sceptical of, changes that challenge the cohesion of the group

[] - to criticize proposals for change without regard for the cohesion of the group

[] - to be more interested in solving problems than looking for them

[] - to enjoy seeking out problems

[] - to appear impervious to boredom and able to maintain a high level of accuracy in long spells of detailed work

[] - to become bored with routine tasks and to do systematic maintenance work only in short bursts

[] - to respond to criticism from close colleagues by moving towards greater conformity

[] - to see criticism from close colleagues as an interesting challenge

[] - to see innovative ideas for change as threatening or unsafe

[] - to see adaptive ideas for change as no change at all


Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. How, if at all, does Kirton's distinction help you to understand and manage your way of being creative?

2. In the light of the table: Which list comes closest to describing you? The one for Adaptors? Or the one for Innovators?

3. Think about the people you work with closely: Who seem to be Adaptors? Who seem to be Innovators?

4. In which situations is being an Adaptor likely to be a strength? In which situations is it likely to be a weakness?

5. In which situations is being an Innovator likely to be a strength? In which situations is it likely to be a weakness?

6. If you could ask Kirton only ONE question, what would you ask him? And why is this the question you would ask?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Michael Kirton, editor, Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and

Problem Solving, Routledge, 1994, ISBN 0415116627, pages 811. http://www.kaicentre.com/new_book_text.htm Chemical Innovation, November 2001, Volume 31, Number 11, pages 1422.

Chapter 2 The Four Step Creative Process

Whether you are a creative Adaptor or a creative Innovator, there is a straightforward four step process for managing and enriching your ability to think creatively: Step 1 Preparation: Think about the problem This step is about two things: defining the problem that requires a creative solution and collecting information about it. It's a good idea to try a number of definitions. Also to get as much information you can; and from a variety of sources. Step 2 Incubation: Stop thinking about the problem This step sounds silly because it requires you not to actively think about the problem. It requires you to allow your subconscious mind to take over. Usually, you've been thinking long and hard about possible solutions to a problem; but you haven't found a solution. So, it's time to relax. Go for a walk. Take a bath or a shower. Try sleeping for a while. Do something totally unrelated to what you've been working on. Although this seems counterproductive, the incubation phase is critical to producing new ideas. You won't know that it's happening, but your subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem. In fact, it seems as if it requires this time to find new and unusual links between the ideas that you produced in the preparation stage. Step 3 Illumination: Welcome the ideas you get This is the moment when you get a new idea that seems to solve the problem you were grappling with. This is the moment when your subconscious mind transfers what it has been working on to your conscious mind; and this is more likely to occur when you are relaxed.


This is why a new idea usually arrives when you've laid the problem to rest, focused on different activities, or relaxed yourself enough to let your subconscious thoughts come through; for example, while you are driving, or showering, or staring into space, or dreaming. Note that many people think that this moment is the most important step in thinking creatively. It isn't. Both preparation (step 1) and incubation (step 2) are more important steps. They are the steps that prepare the ground for illumination (step 3). Think of a world-class musician. A particular recital is like the illumination stage. But when you think about it, the success of the recital depends on things that happened before it:

it depends on things like understanding the piece of music that was played a step which is like the creative thinker's first step (preparation) a step which involves things like exploring possible interpretations of the music that has been chosen.

it depends on things like rehearsing the piece of music that was played a step which is like the creative thinker's second step (incubation) a step which involves moving from a very conscious playing of the music to an almost unconscious playing of it.

So, yes, behind a musician's skilled and effortless performance a lot of things happen. Things that aren't particularly glamorous. Things that require considerable effort. So, yes, as with a recital so with creative thinking. Before ideas arrive a lot of things happen. There's the preparation stage and the illumination stage. Step 4 Verification: Develop, test, and refine the idea This is the time to refine and polish your idea. Not all the ideas you have are going to work. So, because we often find it difficult, if not impossible, to be objective about our ideas, we should try to involve other people in this step. Involve them in evaluating, testing and refining an idea that looks like a good idea that looks like the creative thinking that's required.



1. When and where do you get your best ideas? 2. In the light of the four step creative process: Why do your best

ideas come to you when and where they do? 3. To what extent does your work environment make it difficult to

take the preparation step or the incubation step? 4. Is it possible to overcome or reduce these work related

obstacles? 5. If it is, what do you have to do? And when are you going to

do it? 6. If it isn't, what are the consequences for you and for your

organization? Is this something you can discuss with your supervisor or with someone else who may be able to assist you to manage the problem?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Jennifer Fleming, Creativity for Web Developers, Understanding the process of

innovation www.ahref.com/guides/design/199806/0608jefprintable.html Paul E. Plsek, Models for the Creative Process, www.directedcreativity.com/

pages/WPModels.html#PageTopWPModels Plsek reviews eight models for the creative process that have been published

since 1908.

Chapter 3 Brainstorming

Brainstorming drives all the thinking tools that exist, including the two that will be explored in the next three chapters de Bono's Six Thinking Hats (chapter 4), Lewin's Force Field Analysis (chapter 5) and software for creative thinking (chapter 6). Please note that brainstorming is "a tool for getting a large number of ideas from a group of people in a short time" (Rawlinson, 1996: 36). In other words, brainstorming doesn't aim for good ideas, or even for new ideas; it simply aims to get a large number of ideas. This means that brainstorming should be followed by using other thinking tools like Affinity Diagrams or Filters which will be described after we've said something about the first five steps towards an effective brainstorming session. Step 1: Preparation This involves doing three things:

1. Specify a time limit for the brainstorming session; something like 30 minutes, but a longer or a shorter time may be necessary.

2. Select or invite someone to record the ideas; or, to prepare the way for creating Affinity Diagrams or applying Filters.

3. Alternatively - and preferably - give the participants large Post-its on which they can record an idea. These notes can be moved around on the board where they are posted.

4. Remind the participants that, because the aim is to generate as many ideas as possible, they shouldn't criticize their own or anyone else's ideas.

Step 2: Topic Display the topic or focus of the brainstorm on a whiteboard or a flipchart. Alternatively, display the object that is the focus of the brainstorm: something like a picture, or a flower, or a prototype of a new product.


Step 3: Private brainstorming Allow the participants at least 10 minutes to brainstorm privately, recording their ideas on the pieces of paper or Post-its that have been supplied. It isn't essential, but, if it's possible, play some classical or relaxation music to help people relax. Step 4: Group brainstorming There are three options:

1. Freewheeling encourages participants to "shout out" their ideas in any order. Each idea is listed on a whiteboard or a flipchart.

2. Round Robin gives everyone a turn to offer an idea. Anyone can pass on any turn. This continues until there are no more ideas. Once again, as ideas are offered, they are listed on a whiteboard or a flipchart.

3. Post-it invites the participants to post their Post-it notes (each of which carries one idea) on a board or on a wall.

Step 5: Discussion Once the list has been completed, discuss it with the group to clarify anything that isn't clear, and to decide what happens to the ideas that have been generated. Step 6: Beyond Brainstorming When all the ideas are in, the brainstorm is over. At this point it can be wrapped up, or the group can move to creating Affinity Diagrams or applying Filters:

1. When creating Affinity Diagrams, you sort the list of ideas created during the brainstorm into affinity sets into sets whose members are identical, equivalent or similar - which can be given a title or label. For example, all the suggestions for working smarter rather than harder could be put into an affinity set called SMARTER.

2. When applying Filters, you use criteria (like cost, time, fit, or availability) to eliminate the affinity sets that will be stored in an electronic database instead of being turned into plans that can be implemented.

3. When Storing ideas that have been eliminated you are affirming an important habit that many creative thinkers have the habit of


not dividing ideas into good ones and bad ones. Instead, you divide them into two other groups: ideas you know what to do with more or less immediately. ideas you don't know what to do with AT THE MOMENT

but which you may know what to do with later. In other words, these thinkers don't throw away an idea simply because at a given moment they don't know what to do with it. Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. What do you find most problematic about brainstorming? Either a) about what you've done in the past or b) about what we've said about it here?

2. How, if at all, can you solve or manage these problems? 3. Which of the ideas in these notes, if any, are new to you? 4. Find an opportunity to trial the new ideas, at work, or in another

environment that interests you. Make some notes about what did and didn't work. If you have a coach or a mentor, discuss these notes with him or her. Repeat this process until you feel comfortable about the way in which you run brainstorming sessions.

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on Geoffrey Rawlinson, Creative Thinking and Brainstorming, Gower, 1996,

ISBN 0704505436 Rawlinson blends the theoretical and practical dimensions of brainstorming. www.brainstorming.co.uk/contents.html. This web site provides free

training in traditional and advanced brainstorming techniques.

Chapter 4 Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for Exploring an Idea

Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats is a good example of how thinking tools are driven by brainstorming. It represent six ways of brainstorming an idea, or six ways of thinking about an idea, or six kinds of question that can be asked about it: 1 = Red Hat = intuitive thinking How do I feel about it? What's my gut reaction? What's my hunch? 2 = White Hat = neutral and detached thinking What are the facts? What do I need to know? 3 = Yellow Hat = logical thinking (positive) What's the good news? What benefits do I see? 4 = Black Hat = logical thinking (negative) What's the bad news? What factual, logistical, or ethical problems do I see? 5 = Green Hat = creative thinking What are the possibilities? The alternatives? 6 = Blue Hat = procedural thinking Which hat should I use? Where do I go from here? Is it time for a summary? How do you use the Six Hats in a meeting? Either literally or figuratively, the facilitator puts on his or her Blue (procedural) Hat and does four things:

1. puts forward an idea. 2. nominates the first hat that must be used to think about it. 3. ensures that all the hats are used. 4. collects the ideas for sorting, analysis, and further processing.

As in brainstorming, the facilitator records everyone's ideas on six separate boards or flip charts. Alternatively, the participants put their ideas on large Post-its and attach them to boards or flip charts. This makes it easy to move them around and see how they relate to each other. Note that any participant can ask the facilitator for the Blue Hat; perhaps to suggest that it's time to change hats; or to ask for an opportunity to return to a hat that was used earlier. In other words, the facilitator starts the meeting wearing the Blue Hat; but any participant may ask him or her to relinquish it.


What else can you do with the Six Hats? The hats can be used to analyse an article or book; to structure a presentation; or to write an essay or report. Therefore, in general, the Six Hats can be used to explore or to evaluate an idea or set of ideas. Very importantly, the Six Hats also can be used to monitor your thinking to ensure that your contribution to a conversation, or your thinking about a problem, covers all the thinking modes. An example of having a set order in which the Six Hats are used to think about an idea say, to write a paper or a poem:

1 = White Hat = facts what you want to think about?

4 = Black Hat = problems the bad news

what don't you like about the idea?

2 = Red Hat = feelings how do you feel about the idea?

3 = Yellow Hat = benefits the good news

what do you like about the idea?

5 = Green Hat = new ideas

5a = Green Hat on Yellow Hat

how can I increase the good news? how can I use

the good news?

5a = Green Hat on Black Hat

how can I avoid the bad news?

how can I manage [live with] the bad news?

6 = Blue Hat = action when and where and how

am I going to use these ideas? note

if you don't use these ideas, then you haven't achieved

ANYTHING


What are the benefits attached to using the Six Thinking Hats method? 1 - It produces "Parallel Thinking". In this approach to thinking, instead of attacking each other's ideas, participants share their ideas in parallel with each other. 2 - It "unbundles thinking". Unlike brainstorming, in which the different thinking modes occur in a random and haphazard way, the Six Thinking Hats method attends to each of them in a coherent and orderly way. 3 - It separates ideas from their owners. De Bono calls it "separating ego and performance", because it requires every participant to think about an idea from every angle rather than from only the ones they prefer. 4 - It increases awareness of the kind of thinking that's going on. Because it's a simple way of referring to different modes of thinking, people become aware that they are stuck in one mode or another:

I think I've done only black hat thinking about this. We should try some green hat thinking here.

This awareness enables them to comment on their own thinking or on the thinking of others. And, in the case of commenting on the thinking of others, if they feel like it, they can ask for a switch in the kind of thinking that is being done. Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. What are some of the problems that the Six Hats solve? Where are you going to use this information? And how? Also, with whom are you going to share it?

2. What are some of the problems it creates? How are you going to address these problems? For example, with whom can you discuss them?

3. Think about your thinking: For sure, like everyone else, you use all Six Hats; but which one do you think you use most often? Would your partner agree with your answer? Would your children? Would the people you work with?


4. Use the Six Hats to evaluate the chapters in this book - chapter 1 on adaptors and innovators - chapter 2 on the four step creative process chapter 3 on brainstorming this chapter (number four) on the Six Hats.

5. Use the Six Hats to think through something (not necessarily a problem) that matters to you, something like a significant relationship or the work you would like to do for the next 5 years or where you would like to live or spend your next holiday or .....

6. Because the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, teach Six Hats to someone else (like your partner) or to a group (like the members of your team at work or the members of a study group that you belong to or .....)

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Edward de Bono, Serious Creativity, pages 77-85, Harper Collins, 995,

ISBN 0006379583 Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats, second edition, Back Bay Books, 1999,

ISBN 0316178314 Six Hats Online: www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php www.debonoforbusiness.com/asp/six_hats.asp

Chapter 5 Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis for Achieving a Goal

Kurt Lewin's Force-Field Analysis is a tool for helping you to think about how to achieve a goal-either a personal one or an institutional one. Like de Bono's Six Hats, it's driven by brainstorming by brainstorming the forces that could help you to achieve a goal or hinder you from achieving it. Step 1: Identify your goal as clearly as possible There's a simple rule at work here: the fuzzier your goal the more difficult it is to think about how it could be achieved. Why is this case? Well, the fuzzier your goal, the more difficult it is to identify the forces that impact it negatively (to hassle and hinder you) or positively (to help you). Step 2: Brainstorm the forces that impact negatively or positively on achieving your goal These are the kinds of forces that are often identified sometimes as negative ones sometimes as positive ones sometimes as ones that have both negative and positive dimensions: Traditions Attitudes of people Values Vested interests Regulations Desires Organizational structures Personal or group needs Costs Relationships Present or past practices People Social or organizational trends Institutional policies or norms Events

Step 3: List these forces in two columns On a board (when working with a group) or in spreadsheet (when working by yourself), list all the POSITIVE forces (the factors that may help you to achieve your goal) and the entire NEGATIVE forces (the factors that will hinder you from achieving your goal). Include intangible or emotional factors. Ignoring these can undermine your awareness of what's moving for you and what's moving against you.


Here's the first step in an example of what you have to do: positive forces

information available more quickly improved accuracy and consistency of information gives people more time for more interesting work

Goal upgrade the organization's information gathering from a paper one to an electronic one

negative forces cost of the technology

most of the staff dislike electronic processes disruption during the change complicated to implement

Step 4: Give each force a score between 1 and 5, where 1 is low or weak and 5 is high or strong.

positive forces information available more 5 quickly improved accuracy and 4 consistency of information gives people more time for 4 more interesting work


negative forces 4 cost of the technology 4 most of the staff dislike electronic processes 2 disruption during the change 2 complicated to implement

Step 5: Total the positive and the negative scores Is the result roughly as expected? Do your heart and head agree? If not, review the factors you listed. It's important to be honest both about the forces and about there estimated strength!


positive forces information available more 5 quickly improved accuracy and 4 consistency of information gives people more time for 4 more interesting work total 13


negative forces 4 cost of the technology 4 most of the staff dislike electronic processes 2 disruption during the change 2 complicated to implement 12 total

Step 6: Build on what you've got It may be possible to increase the positive score and decrease the negative score by taking appropriate actions. For example, could additional training or additional resources increase the likelihood of a successful outcome? Review the weights that were attached to the forces in step 5 and decide what could be done to address anything that could hinder you from achieving your goal. In words that de Bono gave us: if the items in the positive column are seen as Yellow Hat (benefits) thinking, then they represent the good news about what we would like to achieve. And so we can ask what we can do to increase or improve the good news. Similarly, if the items in the negative column are seen as Black Hat (problems) thinking, then they represent the bad news about what we are trying to achieve. And so we can ask what we can do to remove or decrease the bad news. If all else fails, we can ask how we are going to accommodate or live with an item of bad news!

positive forces information available more 5 quickly


negative forces 4 cost of the technology


improved accuracy and 4 consistency of information gives people more time for 4 more interesting work total 13

2 most of the staff dislike electronic processes - so involve staff in the implementation of the process 1 complicated to implement - so employ a "best practices" implementer 2 disruption during the change 9 total


1. What are some of the problems that a Force-Field Analysis solves? Where are you going to use this information? And how? Also, with whom are you going to share it?

2. What are some of the problems it creates? How are you going to address these problems? For example, with whom can you discuss them?

3. Use a Force-Field Analysis to think about a goal that matters to you something like a job you would like to get or how to move to where you would like to live or how to get the degree for which you are studying or how to meet an important deadline or .....

4. Because the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, teach Force Field Analysis to someone else (like your partner) or to a group (like the members of your team at work or the members of a study group that you belong to or .....)

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Ohio State University, Force-Field Analysis, www.extension.iastate.edu/

communities/tools/forcefield.html Lyndsay Swinton, Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis: Decision Making

Made Easy www.mftrou.com/Lewins-forcefieldanalysis.html

Chapter 6 Software for Creative Thinking

Question 1 What does software for creative thinking do? Nothing. It's simply a tool. Like a paintbrush, it doesn't do anything until it is used. And, again like a paintbrush, what you produce depends on what you are able to do with it. Just so, software for creative thinking isn't a substitute for thinking: the better you are at thinking, the better you will use the software. How does this kind of software work? Each package has its own features; but, in general, all of them prompt you to think in different ways and from different angles. More specifically, a menu offers you a set of creative thinking techniques. When you've chosen one of them, other menus guide you through the process associated with that technique. By requiring you to work through each step of the process it ensures that you don't miss any of them. In other words, it reminds you of a set of creative thinking techniques. And, when you have made a choice, it reminds you of all the steps that you have to take to use the tool you've chosen. Innovation Toolbox and Idea Generator illustrate these points. Question 2 How does Innovation Toolbox work? You start by having to describe what you want to think about: anything from a very specific problem to a vague worry. The software then offers you 12 tools for thinking about that problem or worry: Brainstorming Analogies Escapism Manipulator False Rule Wishful Thinking Random Word Random Picture Random Website Word & Phrase Challenge Facts Search & Reapply


When you've chosen one of the 12 tools, Innovation Toolbox guides you through the steps you should take to use it properly. Obviously, you can take all these steps without Innovation Toolbox's assistance. It simply helps you to remember to take all the steps that are attached to the tool you've chosen to use. And it gives you a user friendly format in which to take them, to forward what you've produced to a friend or a colleague and to save your thoughts for thinking about on another occasion. Question 3 How does Idea Generator work? It has three parts: Part 1 requires you to define your problem and your goals, as well as to list all the people involved or on whom it impacts. Part 2 offers you seven creative thinking tools:

1. Similar Situations directs you to take lessons from similar situations you have encountered in the past.

2. Metaphors for the Situation prompts you to search for parallels between familiar activities and the situation you face. For example, you can explore what planning a garden may be able to teach you about planning to enrich an organization's climate for creative thinking.

3. Other Perspectives asks you first to play the pessimist and then the optimist and see your situation through the eyes of others, real or imaginary. For example, you can ask yourself, What would Hilary Clinton (or Bugs Bunny) do in a situation like this?

4. Focus on Your Goals One by One lets you treat each objective as the only goal. This frees you from trying to solve too many problems at the same time.

5. Reverse Your Goals prompts you to generate ideas by thinking about what you want to avoid. For example, you can ask yourself, What must I do to kill any opportunities I have to think creatively where I work?

6. Focus on the People Involved asks you to analyse qualities in other people, helpful or hostile, as a source of new ideas.


7. Make the Most of Your Ideas permits you to improve bad ideas, dump ideas that make no sense, and group ideas together in categories.

Part 3 helps you evaluate your ideas. You have to prioritize them according to the importance you have given to your goals; do a cost/benefit analysis of each idea and determine its effects on other people. Once again, you can take all these steps without Idea Generator's assistance. It simply helps you to remember to take all the steps that are attached to the tool you've chosen to use. And, once again, it gives you a user friendly format in which to take them, to forward what you've produced to a friend or a colleague and to save your thoughts for thinking about on another occasion. Question 4 What other software for creative thinking could you try? Charles Cave does his best to monitor and evaluate what's available. His list is on the Creativity Web at http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/Creative/index2.html look under Software which is under Resource Centre Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Your CEO has asked for five bullet points on the idea of using software for creative thinking. What will you give her? Why are these the five points you'll give her?

2. Use de Bono's Six Hats to explore the idea of using software for creative thinking. How do you feel about it (Red Hat)? What are the facts (White Hat)? What are the benefits (Yellow Hat) attached to the idea? What are the problems (Black Hat) attached to the idea? How can use increase the benefits and reduce the problems (Green Hat) attached to the idea? What are you going to do with the ideas you got (Blue Hat) by using the Six Hats to explore the idea of using software for creative thinking?

3. Where you work or in any other environment that interests you float the idea of using software for creative thinking. Put the positive and negative responses you get in a Force Field Analysis. Try to assess the strength of each point. Which are


stronger? The positive forces or the negative forces? What, if anything, can you do to strengthen the positive forces and weaken the negative ones?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Charles Cave, Can computers help you think?, www.members.optusnet.com.au/

charles57/Creative/Software/essay.htm Innovation Toolbox @ www.infinn.com/toolbox.html Idea Generator @ www.projectkickstart.com/html/ideafaq.htm

PART TWO Managing Other People's Creativity

This part of the book is about managing other people's creativity, about developing organizations that stimulate and encourage creative thinking. It has a theoretical and a practical dimension. The theory presents three sets of criteria for assessing the extent to which an organization's culture encourages creativity. The practical dimension explores two ways of designing organizations in which creative thinking is encouraged. One of them is rooted in the idea of managing an organization's present and future simultaneously. The other was created by us and employs the idea of coaching for creativity. Like the first model, it has been tested in management environments and found to work.

Chapter 7 When does an organization's culture encourage

creative thinking?

The challenge to isolate specific dimensions of culture

that if improved will demonstrate a direct correlation to enhanced creativity

John Kutch 7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's answer alignment self-initiated activity unofficial activity serendipity diverse stimuli with-in company communication

7.2 Teresa Amabile's answer Six factors or forces that encourage creativity: organizational encouragement supervisory encouragement work group support sufficient resources challenging work freedom

Two factors or forces that discourage creativity: organizational impediments workload pressure

7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's answer Motivation Trust and Openness Playfulness and Humour Few Interpersonal Conflicts Exploration Risk-taking Debates about the Issues Freedom Resources Idea Time Idea Support Challenge and Involvement


7.1 Alan Robinson and Sam Stern's criteria for a culture that encourages creative thinking

Alan Robinson is a professor in the Business School at the University of Massachusetts. Sam Stern is a professor in the Education Faculty at Oregon State University. They believe that an organization's culture encourages creative thinking when these six factors or forces are present: alignment self-initiated activity unofficial activity serendipity diverse stimuli with-in company communication

Their book argues for these six criteria. It can be reduced to four questions and the answers to them. Question 1 How do they define corporate creativity? A company is creative when its employees do something new and potentially useful without being directly shown or taught.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, page 11) Question 2 What are the results of corporate creativity? The results of creativity in companies are improvements (changes to what is already being done) and innovations (activities that are entirely new).

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, page 11) Question 3 What is their negative message about corporate creativity? Creativity methods such as brainstorming actually limit people's creativity by removing them from their workplace, which is the source of most work related creative acts.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, pages 49-52) Question 4 What is their recipe for creating a work environment that encourages creative thinking? Point 4.1 Embrace the "No Preconceptions Principle" It is impossible to predict who will be creative, what they will do, and when and how they will do it.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, pages 19-20)

Managing Other People's Creativity 41

Point 4.2 Reflect on the significance of Paul Torrance's research Early in the Korean War the United States Air Force hired Paul Torrance to develop a training program that would prepare its pilots and crews to survive extreme conditions of deprivation and danger, including intense cold or heat; lack of food, water or shelter; and being downed at sea, in the jungle, or even behind enemy lines. Torrance reviewed the research literature and studied existing training programs. He also interviewed hundreds of Air Force personnel who had survived such experiences in World War II. In the end, what he found surprised him: one of the things that had proven most critical for survival was something that no training program taught. It was the ability to think creatively. Existing courses offered plenty of information about how to deal with a variety of hostile conditions, discussed actual cases of how people had survived and even escaped from POW camps, and often included realistic simulation exercises. But Torrance found that no matter how much training people had received, when faced with the real thing, almost invariably they had to cope with unexpected situations. Those who survived had combined elements of their training and life experiences to create a completely new survival technique. A technique they hadn't been taught. In writing about the importance of creativity to survival, Torrance came to this conclusion:

Creativity and invention are adaptive forces which have perhaps been given too little attention in connection with problems of survival and survival training. Successful survivors describe many creative and imaginative behaviors which not only solved immediate problems for them but apparently gave them renewed energy for continued adaptation.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, pages 11 and 12) Point 4.3 Embrace the casino analogy "Managing" creativity is about raising probabilities; and in this respect it is like operating a casino. Although casinos do not know how individual gamblers will fare at any given table, they know that if enough customers play for long enough against the house odds, the casino will make a very predictable and stable profit. In the short term, it is a matter of probability, but in the long term, profits are a matter of certainty.


In much the same way, companies cannot predict where specific creative acts will come from or what they will be; but they can do things that will increase the frequency with which creative thinking occurs.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, page 12) Point 4.4 Increase the probability that creative thinking will occur For corporate creativity, the work environment is the dominant factor. A bad system will beat a good person every time. Therefore, focus on six factors or forces that encourage creative thinking in a work environment:

Alignment self initiated activity unofficial activity serendipity diverse stimuli within company communication.

(Robinson & Stern, 1997, pages 12-16, 39 and chapters 6 to 11) Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Compare Kirton's distinction between Adaptors and Innovators (chapter 1) and Robinson & Stern's definition of corporate creativity. What's different? What's similar?

2. How would you rank Robinson & Stern's six factors or forces on the first page of chapter 7? Why is this how you would rank them?

3. On a 5 point scale (where 5 is a "must have" for corporate creativity and 1 is a "nice to have"), how would you weight each of the factors or forces? Why is this how you would weight them?

4. Think about the organization you work for, or about one that interests you. How many of Robinson & Stern's six factors or forces are present? What does this tell you about its potential or actual level of creativity?

5. If you could ask Robinson or Stern only ONE question, what would you ask them? And why is this the question you would ask? And how do you think they would answer it?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Alan Robinson and Sam Stern, Corporate Creativity: How Innovation and

Improvement Actually Happen, Business & Professional Publishing, 1997, ISBN 1875680462


7.2 Teresa Amabile's criteria for a culture that encourages creative thinking

Teresa Amabile is a professor at the Harvard Business School. She believes an organization's culture encourages or discourages creative thinking when various factors or forces are present: Six factors or forces that encourage creativity: organizational encouragement supervisory encouragement work group support sufficient resources challenging work freedom

Two factors or forces that discourage creativity: organizational impediments workload pressure Her ideas are expressed in KEYS, as well as in an article on how to kill creativity. Section One Questions about KEYS Question 1 What is KEYS? It's a tool for assessing the climate for creativity that exists in a work group, division or organization. It was created by Teresa Amabile and is administered by the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, USA. Question 2 What does KEYS assess? Six environmental factors or forces that encourage creativity:

1. Organizational encouragement comes from top management supporting creativity, risk taking and an open atmosphere for idea exchange, as well as recognizing for creative work.

2. Supervisory encouragement comes from managers who give support to subordinates, communicate effectively, and set clear expectations and goals.


3. Work group support comes from skills diversity, teamwork, mutual trust and support and commitment to work.

4. Sufficient resources are things like access to appropriate facilities, equipment, funds and information.

5. Challenging work is work where the importance and the difficult nature of the task define the challenge.

6. Freedom is freedom to decide how to accomplish tasks, and a sense of control over work and ideas.

Two environmental factors or forces that discourage creativity:

1. Organizational impediments come from destructive criticism, truism, rigidity and resistance to change.

2. Workload pressure comes from unrealistic expectations, insufficient time and distractions.

Question 3 What research findings support KEYS? Amabile (1988) identified factors or forces that promote corporate creativity by studying a group of 120 people working in R&D departments. Her research tells us that domain relevant skills, creativity relevant skills, and intrinsic task motivation are the keys to corporate creativity. Each of the three components is necessary for creativity to occur. Conceptualized as circles, creativity will be greatest where the circles overlap. From a personal perspective, creativity is stimulated by self-motivation, a risk orientation, diverse experience, expertise in the area in which one works, and social skills; but lack of motivation, lack of domain relevant skills, inflexibility, external motivation, and lack of social skills inhibit creativity. While individual factors and initiative are important to creativity, social environments also make a difference. Environments that exhibit freedom, good project management, sufficient resources, supervisory encouragement, recognition, sufficient time, some challenge, and some pressure stimulated creativity. On the other hand, creativity is inhibited by too much constraint, organizational disinterest, poor project management, constant evaluation, insufficient resources, a


corporate climate marked by a lack of cooperation across divisions and levels and overemphasis on the status quo, as well as on competition. Many of these factors are influenced by management. It usually determines the organizational characteristics, sets the tone for the corporate climate, and determines whether or not the organization is interested in innovation. It also controls things like project management, evaluation, resources, and whether or not there is an emphasis on the status quo, on constraint and on competition. The people who were studied felt that organizations require "a mechanism for considering new ideas, a corporate climate marked by cooperation and collaboration across levels and divisions, and an atmosphere where innovation is prized and failure is not fatal" (Amabile, 1988, p. 147). Section two How to kill creativity Amabile (1998) believes that many managerial practices kill creativity by crushing intrinsic motivation - the strong internal desire to do something based on interests and passions. Obviously, managers dont kill creativity on purpose; but they often undermine it by the way in which they pursue productivity, efficiency, and control. So, can these business imperatives coexist with creativity? Amabile believes they can; but only if managers understand that creativity has three parts:

1. expertise; 2. the ability to think flexibly and imaginatively; 3. and intrinsic motivation.

Managers can influence the first two, but doing so is costly and slow. It is far more effective to increase employees' intrinsic motivation by pulling five levers:

1. the amount of challenge they give employees; 2. the degree of freedom they grant around process; 3. the way they design work groups; 4. the level of encouragement they give; 5. the nature of organizational support.


For example, intrinsic motivation is high when employees feel challenged but not overwhelmed by their work. Managers, therefore, have to match people to the right assignments. Freedom also increases intrinsic motivation and therefore creativity when managers let people decide how to achieve goals that have to be achieved. So, yes managers can make a difference when it comes to employee creativity. The best way to do so is to pull as many of these five levers as possible. Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Go to the first page of chapter 7 and compare Robinson & Stern's six factors or forces and Amabile's six factors or forces that encourage creativity. What's different? What's similar?

2. How would you rank Amabile's six factors or forces that encourage creativity? Why is this how you would rank them?

3. On a 5 point scale (where 5 = a "must have" for corporate creativity and 1 = a "nice to have"), how would you weight each of them? Why is this how you would weight them?

4. Think about the organization you work for, or about one that interests you. How many of Amabile's six factors or forces that encourage creativity are present? What does this tell you about its potential or actual level of creativity?

5. If you could ask Amabile only ONE question, what would you ask her? And why is this the question you would ask?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Teresa Amabile, A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations,

Research in Organizational Behavior, 1988, 10, pp. 123-167 Teresa Amabile, How to Kill Creativity, Harvard Business Review,

September-October, 1998, pp. 77-87


7.3 The Situational Outlook Questionnaire's criteria for a culture that encourages creative thinking

The Situational Outlook Questionnaire believes that an organization's culture encourages creative thinking when these nine factors or forces are present: Motivation Trust and Openness Playfulness and Humour Few Interpersonal Conflicts Exploration Risk-taking Debates about the Issues Freedom Resources Idea Time Idea Support Challenge and Involvement

What is the Situational Outlook Questionnaire - the SOQ? It's a tool for assessing the climate for creativity that exists in a work group, division, or organization. Part One is a 50 item paper-and-pencil self-report measure. Respondents use a scale to indicate the extent to which each statement describes their work situation. Part Two employs three open ended, short answer questions that invite respondents to elaborate on their perceptions of the factors which hinder or support their creativity:

1. What is working well? 2. What needs to be improved? 3. What suggestions do you have for improving it?

What does it assess? Nine work dimensions that fall into three areas: Motivation, Exploration and Resources. Like so Motivation Trust and Openness Playfulness and Humour Few Interpersonal Conflicts Exploration Risk-taking Debates about the Issues Freedom Resources Idea Time Idea Support Challenge and Involvement


Motivation 1 = Trust and Openness Do people feel safe when speaking their minds and offering different points of view? 2 = Playfulness and Humour How relaxed is the workplace? Is it OK to have some fun? 3 = Few Interpersonal Conflicts How often are people involved in interpersonal conflict? Exploration 4 = Risk-taking Is it OK to fail? 5 = Debates about the Issues Do people engage in lively debates about the issues facing the organization? 6 = Freedom How free are people to decide how to do their job? Resources 7 = Idea Time Do people have time to think things through before having to act? 8 = Idea Support Are there resources to try new ideas? 9 = Challenge and Involvement To what extent are members of the organization involved in its daily operations and long-term goals? Who created and validated the SOQ? Goran Ekvall and Scott Isaksen. Ekvall was a research psychologist with the Swedish Council on Work Life Issues in Stockholm, Sweden. Isaksen is the President of the Creative Problem Solving Group in Buffalo, USA. Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Go to the first page of chapter 7 and compare the factors and forces that encourage creative thinking. The six that Robinson & Stern have given us the six that Amabile has given us the nine that the SOQ has given us. What's different? What's similar?


2. If you had to assess an organization's climate for creativity, which of the three lists would you choose? Why would that be your choice?

3. Alternatively, could you be tempted to create your own list? A list that's based on the three lists you have? Why would it include what it does? Why would it exclude what it does?

4. Go to the SOQ's nine factors or forces on the first page of chapter 7. How would you rank them? Why is this how you would rank them?

5. On a 5 point scale (where 5 = a "must have" for corporate creativity and 1 = a "nice to have"), how would you weight each of the factors or forces? Why is this how you would weight them?

6. Think about the organization you work for, or about one that interests you. How many of the SOQ's nine factors or forces are present? What does this tell you about its potential or actual level of creativity?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on what's available at two web sites: www.soqOnline.net/ www.cpsb.com/assessments/soq

Chapter 8

How may organizational design encourage creative thinking? Ken Blanchard and Terry Waghorn B&W have created a structural model to answer this question. James Moulder has created a cascading model. Both models assume that everyone in an organization is required to think creatively about their work. This isn't "a nice to have" an optional extra that you can choose to do if you feel like it. Instead, it's "a must have" it's something that's in everyone's job description and part of everyone's performance appraisal.


8.1 Blanchard and Waghorn's Structural Model

What are the two problems that Blanchard & Waghorn want to solve?

1. How can a company constantly improve what it's doing today, yet at the same time, constantly be looking for tomorrow's opportunities? In other words, how can it focus on the present and on the future at the same time and in equal measure?

2. How can a company leverage the fact that its employees are either Adaptors or Innovators? Either people who prefer 'to make improvements in existing ways of doing things', or people who prefer 'to do things differently'? (Kirton, 1994, pp. 14-19)

What is their proposed solution? Throughout the organization, create two sets of teams. One set is charged with finding and implementing improvement ideas for the present. The other is charged with finding and implementing innovation ideas for the future. The members of these teams are not strategists; they are the people the company employs. They work in these teams in addition to their regular jobs. Broadly speaking, what does the proposed structure look like?


What do Present Teams do? In general, they try to figure out how the company's present products, services and processes can be improved. More specifically, they ask and try to answer this kind of question:

1. Who are our customers and why do they buy from us? 2. How are the needs of our customers changing and how can we

use those changes to our advantage? 3. How can we strengthen our relationships with our key

customers, suppliers and business partners? 4. If our customers could redesign our company, how would they

do it? 5. Who are our competitors, and why do customers choose them

over us? 6. How is the industry or business environment changing and how

can we use those changes to our advantage? Obviously, this list isn't complete; but asking and answering questions of this kind will start to generate ideas and suggestions for improving the company. What do Future Teams do? In general, they try to figure out how the company will compete in the future, which is defined as somewhere between eighteen and thirty-six months from now. More specifically, they ask and try to answer this kind of question:

1. What will our industry look like two years from now? 2. What should the company look like to be competitive two years

from now? 3. Will we be serving the same customers in the future that we are

serving today? If not, how will they be different? 4. Through which channels will we reach tomorrow's customers? 5. What will be the basis of competition? Will it be continuous

innovation, for example? Or mass customization? 6. How do we ensure the industry evolves to our advantage? 7. What strategic capabilities or alliances must we build to ensure,

not only survival, but market domination? Once again, this list isn't complete; but asking and answering questions of this kind will start to generate ideas and suggestions for changing the company.


What do the two Design Teams do? The Present Teams send their ideas to a Design Team; and so do the Future Teams. In each case, the Design Team does two things:

1. it evaluates and coordinates ideas it receives - sometimes it asks a team to do some more work on an idea - sometimes it asks two or more teams to turn similar ideas into a single idea - sometimes it explains to a team why one of its ideas can't be implemented.

2. it decides which ideas can be implemented immediately and which have to go to the Steering Committee for a decision.

What does the Steering Committee do? The Steering Committee balances the present and future focus of the organization by supporting the two organization wide Design Teams. Both need its support to get people involved in the change process and to remove obstacles that inevitably hinder all change programs. Other needs will be more specific. For example, the Present Design Team needs to know what can and what cannot be changed. But the Future Design Team doesn't need boundaries; it needs freedom to imagine the future and to think the unthinkable. Whatever the needs of the design teams, the Steering Committee must support both fully and equally to ensure a complete balance between the company's present and future needs. Which creative thinking tools work for the two kinds of team? Miller (1993, p. 152) puts creative thinking tools into four boxes:

for creative MODIFYING

Force Field Analysis

Attribute Listing SCAMPER

for creative VISIONING

Wish List

Future Annual Report Visualization

for creative

EXPERIMENTING

Matrix Analysis Morphological Analysis Nature of the Business

for creative EXPLORING

Guided Imagery| Analogy

Forced Association | Alternative Scenarios Dreaming | Drawing


Because the tools for modifying and experimenting focus on improvement type creativity, they are more likely to be used by the Present Teams. On the other hand, the tools for visioning and exploring focus on innovation type creativity; and so they are more likely to be used by the Future Teams. Having said that, obviously, if they want to, any team may use any of the tools. Can divisions and teams use Blanchard & Waghorn's ideas? Yes. B&W's book is about two concepts:

1. managing the present and the future. 2. leveraging both adaptive and innovative creative thinking.

And so they can be used by any group of people who want to do those two things. Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. What would Kirton's Adaptors say about Blanchard & Waghorn's model for enriching the climate for creative thinking? And what would his Innovators say?

2. Compare Robinson & Stern's six forces or factors for encouraging creative thinking and Blanchard & Waghorn's model. Which of the six forces or factors does it capture? Which does it miss?

3. Compare Amabile's forces or factors for encouraging creative thinking and Blanchard & Waghorn's model. Which of the six forces or factors does it capture? Which does it miss?

4. Compare the SOQ's nine forces or factors for encouraging creative thinking and Blanchard &Waghorn's model. Which of the nine forces or factors does it capture? Which does it miss?

References and Acknowledgements This chapter is based on: Ken Blanchard and Terry Waghorn, Mission Possible: How to Manage the

Present While Building the Future, McGraw-Hill, 1997, ISBN 0070059403

Michael Kirton, editor, Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving, Routledge, 1994, ISBN 0415116627, pages 8-11.

William Miller, Flash of Brilliance: Inspiring Creativity Where You Work, Perseus Books, 1999, ISBN 0738200182


8.2 Moulder's Cascading Model James Moulder's cascading model was born in the University of Cape Town's Public Relations Department. It was refined in the University of Natal's Philosophy Department. It has been tested successfully in various for profit and not for profit organizations. A summary of its basic ideas, an essay that Moulder wrote and a Q&A session tell us how this model works. Section One The Basic Ideas About Cascading Creative Thinking 1 - it has three dimensions:

y a (monthly) meeting y the four step creative process y tools for creative thinking

2 - it rests on two assumptions

Everyone has the ability to think about how they can change or improve the work they have to do.

If they are given time to use this ability, they can learn how to think creatively about their work; that is, they can change or improve the work they have to do.

3 - it's driven by two of Robinson & Stern's ideas

the casino analogy = how does one increase the probability that creative thinking will occur?

the no preconceptions principle = it's impossible to predict when creative thinking will occur

4 - it employs four insights from SOQ, from Amabile and from Robinson & Stern

focus freedom idea support idea time or or or

alignment self initiated activity supervisory

encouragement Robinson &

Stern Amabile and SOQ SOQ SOQ Robinson & Stern Amabile


5 it requires managers to manage people's imagination; that is, it employs Amabile's insight that managers either stimulate or kill the creativity of the people who report to them, but it doesn't follow her into the world of managerial whining, where the CEO or the culture are blamed for poor performance. Section Two An essay on cascading creative thinking My essay first identifies two facts that can be used to create, implement, and maintain a plan for enriching the climate for creativity in workplaces that interest me. It then explains my position in the motivation debate. Finally, two examples are used to clarify how the plan works and how to evaluate the return on this kind of investment. Two facts The theory behind cascading creative thinking rests on two facts about creativity:

1. Everyone has the ability to think about how they can improve or change their work.

2. If they are given time, and training in creative thinking techniques, everyone can improve this ability.

Although I believe these two facts are indisputably true, if you think they aren't, you can verify them indirectly or directly. The indirect way to verify them is to read any article or book on creativity in the workplace. None of them deny these statements; in fact, explicitly or implicitly, they all affirm them. The direct way to verify these two facts is to talk to anyone about their work. If, in this conversation, they are asked how they can improve or change their work, they will tell you. Similarly, they will tell you that, if they were given some time to think about their work, as well as some training in creative thinking techniques, they would be able to improve their ability to think about how to improve or change their work.


Acting on the facts If these facts are accepted, then ONE way to enrich a corporate climate for creativity is to do four things:

1. Give people an opportunity to discuss and understand these two facts.

2. Give them some training in creative thinking techniques. 3. Give them an hour a month to use and refine these techniques as

they talk to the person they report to about how they can improve or change the work they do.

4. Give them permission to implement any idea which they and the person they report to want to implement.

My plan implements points 1 and 2 in six two-hour workshops. The first one introduces them to the two facts and gives them time to discuss and understand them. The second gives them an opportunity to discuss and understand the four step creative process. The remaining workshops introduce them to three creative thinking techniques (brainstorming, de Bono's Six Hats and Lewin's Force-Field Analysis), as well as to the Idea Generator, which is a software package for stimulating creative thinking. The monthly meetings in my plan implement points 3 and 4. In these meetings, people use the creative thinking techniques while talking to the person they report to about how they can improve or change the work they do. They also get permission to implement any idea which they and the person they report to want to implement. The motivation debate Because my plan makes creative thinking part of what people do, I don't have to decide whether or not I am going to reward them for being creative. In other words, people who aren't IMPROVING or INNOVATING their work aren't doing something they were employed to do. Evaluating the results In my plan, evaluating the results is confined to calculating the return on the money that goes into implementing and maintaining it. Therefore, instead of trying to evaluate the ideas people produce, my plan evaluates the impact their ideas have on clearly and easily measurable numbers and ratios which are attached to where they work. Obviously, I can't say what these numbers and ratios are until I am talking about a specific PR department, or a specific academic department in the humanities. In other words, in the fields that interest me, there isn't a general recipe for calculating the ROI in a creativity


enrichment plan of the kind I have described. But the two examples that follow show that it can be done. Example One = The University of Cape Town's Public Relations

Department (1981-1985) The University had a cascading reporting system that worked like this: once a month I reported to the Registrar who, in American terminology, was the Vice-President for Administration; four people reported to me each month; and each of them had about five people who reported to them. In round figures, the opportunity cost of my monthly meeting with the Registrar was $65 dollars; the total opportunity cost of the four meetings in which people reported to me was $220; and the total of the PR Department's attempt to enrich its climate for creativity was about $1200 a month, or less than $15000 a year. The return on this investment was measured in four quantifiable ways:

1. an increase in the number and size of donations to the University. 2. an increase in the square centimetres of print media stories about

the University. 3. an increase in the number of quality student applications. 4. improvements in the University's rating in national and

international surveys. In each of the five years I was associated with this program, in the two areas that could be given a monetary value (increased donations and increased print media stories) the return on the annual investment of $15000 ran into hundreds of percent. I believe the program was successful, not because of the individuals who drove it, but because of its structure. In other words, any PR department that adopts this structured way of enriching its climate for creativity will achieve similar IMPROVEMENTS and INNOVATIONS. Example Two = The University of Natal's Philosophy Department

(1986 - 1994) The University didn't have a cascading reporting system; but, because I was Head of the Department, I had the authority to introduce the idea. After the implementation phase, I met with the secretary once a month for an hour; but, because most academics hate meetings, I met with them only twice a


year for two hours. The agenda was straightforward and always the same. How can we improve our teaching in the coming semester? How can we improve our research in the coming semester? The annual opportunity cost of this investment was about $1200. Across nine years, the monetary return came in two ways. In the first year, the Department reduced its administrative costs from about $5000 to about $4000; in the other eight, it accepted and met the challenge of not spending more than $5000 on administration. The name of its game was to beat inflation with IMPROVEMENTS and INNOVATIONS. Similarly, the monetary return in the academic area was sustained rather than spectacular. From no subsidy on publications for the five years before the program was introduced to each academic attracting an annual subsidy because of having at least one publication. The most spectacular improvement was from someone who went from no publications in 20 years to 12 publications during the nine years she participated in the program. In addition, the program achieved two other quantifiable results: an increase in postgraduate students; and an improvement in student evaluations of teaching. Once again, I believe the program was successful, not because of the individuals who drove it, but because of its structure. In other words, any academic department in the humanities that adopts this structured way of enriching its climate for creativity will achieve similar IMPROVEMENTS and INNOVATIONS. Section Three Q&A on the idea of cascading creative thinking Q: What is creativity? A: I don't have a general definition; but, in the context of trying to promote creative thinking in a workplace, I work with the following equations:

creativity = creative thinking about the work one has to do creative thinking = improvement-type and innovation-type

creative thinking


improvement-type creative thinking = thinking about how one can do one's work better

innovation-type creative thinking = thinking about how one can do one's work differently

Therefore trying to promote creative thinking in a workplace = trying to

promote thinking about either or both of two things: how one can do one's work better or how one can do one's work differently

Q: Have you placed any restrictions or conditions on your project? A: Yes. When one is thinking about how one can do one's work better or how one can do one's work differently, one must restrict oneself to ideas that satisfy two conditions: firstly, they fall within the scope of one's authority or within the scope of one's supervisor's authority; and, secondly, they can be funded from the budget that is under one's own control or under one's supervisor's control. Q: Why have you placed these restrictions on your project to promote thinking about how one can do one's work better or differently? A: To push people into exploring and testing the scope of their authority and their supervisor's authority; and to push people into thinking about how to use the money under their control and their supervisor's control. And I want to push people in these two directions, because, if people go down these roads, they will have to focus on the intersection of their influence and their control instead of being frustrated by the fact that their ideas for doing things better or differently can't be implemented. Q: Won't these restrictions kill creativity? A: I don't think so. Q: Why don't you think you are killing creativity? A: Because of what I have learnt about creativity from artists. Their works of art were created from the materials they had, not from the materials they would have liked to have had. Similarly, I want people to think about how they can do their work more creatively with resources they have rather than with resources they would like to have.


Q: OK, so if that's your understanding of how to promote improvement-type and innovation-type thinking about one's work, let's talk about the ideas that are floating around in James Moulder's thinking about creativity. Which of those ideas are reflected in your proposal to cascade creative thinking? A: It's a long list.

From the section on theories about creative thinking, I've bought Kirton's ideas about adaptation and innovation; the ideas about the preparation and incubation stages of the creative thinking process; and de Bono's belief that, although some do it better than others, everyone can learn how to think about doing their work better or differently.

From the section on tools for creative thinking, I've bought de Bono's Six Hats and Lewin's Force Field Analysis.

From the literature behind chapter 7 and chapter 8.1, I've bought four sets of ideas: 1. from Robinson & Stern the Torrance Principle ("if you must,

you can"); the Casino Analogy (if the equipment is biased in your favour, then, in the long run, you must win); the No-Preconceptions Principle (because anyone can think creatively about their work, everyone should be encouraged and assisted to do so); and alignment (which I call focus and which is related to the restrictions I have placed on the kind of creative thinking I'm looking for).

2. from Amabile - supervisory encouragement stimulates creative thinking about one's work.

3. from the SOQ - if people are required to think creatively about their work, they must be given time to do so.

4. from Blanchard & Waghorn - thinking creatively about one's work involves thinking about present improvements and future innovations, which, in my book, is equivalent to Kirton's ideas about adaptation and innovation.

Q: What about intrinsic motivation? Why have you ignored what Amabile, Robinson & Stern and everyone else sees as a primary cause of workplace creativity? A: Mainly, because I don't understand the concept of having an intrinsic motive to work. But also because, in a cascading system, thinking about how you can do your work better or differently is part of your job description; it's part of what you have to do.


Q: Is there a short statement or a diagram that captures your ideas about creativity in the workplace? A: Yes. My understanding of creative thinking about one's work is repr

managing creativity nicolae_moulder.pdf

Documents

university degree

peoples editura ase

managing ones

peoples mariana nicolae

editura ase tehnoredactor

university of bucharest

editura ase toate drepturile

rhodes university