Creativity for Managers:How might structured problem solving techniques improve creative thinking? SHR603-6
Creativity for Managers
Analysis of practical, cognitive or emotional blocks to creative idea generation and how these might be overcome using structured techniques
Creative thinking is now no more restricted to the domain of arts and philosophical science. The use of creativity is now recognized to play an important role in the daily business and academic situations (Acar & Runco, 2012). In this particular case too the use of creativity in the context of problem solving method has been used to find a solution to a particular issue. The purpose of the workshop was to find out an apt solution that stopped students from plagiarizing. The group facilitated a creative problem solving session in one of the workshop. Chiu (2012) stated that the Alex Osborne and Sidney Parnes model of creative problem solving or CPS is used to facilitate the course of action. 6 steps have been detailed in the model and they are as follows: Finding the Objective, Finding out the Facts, Finding out the Problems, Finding out the Ideas, Evaluation of Ideas and Implementation of Ideas. These six steps have some common points. Each step comprises of divergent thinking phase where one can generate lots of ideas that relate to all the steps of facts, defining issues, idea generation, evaluation of criteria, strategy implementation etc and then the convergent phase in which the most apt and promising ideas were chosen for future exploration (DeHaan, 2011). In the workshop this was done by having each member jot down three ideas on a piece of paper which dealt with “how to stop students from plagiarizing” and then pass on the same paper to the next team member who repeated the act and so on. This was the Divergent Phase. Finally, the best ideas were selected and that marked the convergent phase.
The stages in the workshop as guided by Osborne Parkes CPS Model are as follows.
OF: Objective finding stage where the goals, wishes and challenges were identified. The goal of the workshop session in this case was to find out ways in which plagiarism can be stopped in students.
FF: Data gathering or the Fact Finding Stage. It was demonstrated that many team members has considerable difficulty in grasping the ways in which plagiarism is employed in the student community today.
PF or Problem Solving phase which involves clarification of the problem. Here too situational, cultural and perspective blocks stopped some team members from fully defining the reach of the problem. An example is that while use of plagiarism was construed to be the problem the situations which provoke the use of plagiarism like insufficient time, diminished understanding, lack of interest are all a part of the issue but not all team members agreed on them.
IF or Idea Finding Phase which requires the generation of ideas. The possible solutions for plagiarism use were defined here. There are six methods of idea generation and they are defined below.
Brainstorming Session: This is one of the most popular techniques of idea generation and has been used in the workshop too. Doppelt (2009) addressed that the concept behind brainstorming is to generate ideas in a group context by the help of suspension of judgment and holistic acceptance of all ideas. The use of Post its, diagrams, flow charts and other visual aids are encouraged in the process of Idea generation.
Fink et al. (2007) argued that negative Brainstorming is also another method in which bad or highly impractical ideas are changed into usable solutions by the help of group discussions
Six Thinking Hats Method by Edward de Bono is a process where the brain is stimulated to think in six different directions and this in turn generates the perfect solution. Red hat thinking uses intuition and feelings. Black Hat thinking uses caution and judgment and is used critically. Yellow Hat thinking hinges upon the logical positives of solution. Green Hat Thinking stimulates the creative process and Heralds provocation and changes. Blue Hat Thinking is concerned with Meta cognition or the technicalities of the process (Glassner & Schwarz, 2007).
Mind Mapping: This process originally invented by Tony Buzz was also used in the workshop session. The center of the board was underlined with the central idea, the team was invited in and encouraged to work in from all directions and gradually a distinct pattern which pointed towards the solution of the problem emerges (Hong & Milgram, 2010).
Super Hero: This is a method that is actually a boundary stretching process leaning on excursions and role reversals. The team pretends to be a particular superhero like Hulk/Wonder woman/Batman/ Sherlock Holmes/ James Bond/spider man etc. This process allows the team to feel very light hearted and friendly. The super heroes have capacities of superlative powers and this method was particularly effective in helping team members think out of the box and express unusual ideas. Kim (2011) stated that the personal, situational and environmental blocks to creative problem solving were reduced as members tended to think outside the defined boundaries. In this process each super hero (i.e. Each team member) expressed a certain view point and the other members (other super Heroes) used those ideas as triggers for their own ideas. It was also observed that introverted team members within the group tended to use the third person voice as opposed to extrovert members who used the direct voice (Lee, 2005).
These methods are all apt and are proved by academic research to be effective in the process of idea generation.
Lindberg et al. (2010) concluded that as far as creative blocks are concerned there are three identifiable and overlapping categories of blocks which are personal, situational/ environmental and problem solving blocks. The personal blocks can be categorized as less amount of self confidence or diminished self image, a heightened need to confirm, a strong love for familiar territory, habit restricted thinking, emotional incompetence or numbness, creative saturation, overflow of enthusiasm, presence of restrictive values and cultural systems etc (Mumford et al. 2012).
Runco & Acar (2012) critically reflected on the research done by Jones which showed that there are 4 types of categories of barriers. The barriers can be known as strategic barriers, perceptual barriers, value based barriers and self image barriers. Strategic barriers are the issues in exploring diverse approaches to problem solving. This has been demonstrated in the creative problem solving workshop where some group members demonstrated a decreased ability to sustain an open view point. Value based barriers were also demonstrated when team members demonstrated rigid adherence to custom bound definitions of plagiarism. Perception based barriers happen when there is difficulty in demonstrating full awareness to the environment. Stereo typing is an apt example of this kind of barrier.
The problem solving blocks can be categorized as solution fixtures, making premature judgements, transfer of habits, use of bad problem solving approach, lack of discipline, poor demonstration of linguistic skills and rigid perceptions. Situational/environmental blocks to creativity rest on the belief that only one kind of thinking is allowed for all creative outcomes and this is naturally synonymous with resistance to new ideas, isolation of environment, over reliance on theoretical knowledge and over reliance on cooperation.
While the methods examined above showed considerable promise in helping along the creative idea generation process it came to light that every individual had a different position in the thinking Skills and personal capabilities Framework. Five aspects could be identified clearly and the writer was able to distinguish between self and others according to varying levels of competence on these five aspects.
Managing Information which requires asking for data, assessment of data, selection of required information, recording the information, integration of information and communication. Runco & Acar (2012) added that the strengths were in asking focused questions and planning and setting up smaller goals with respect to the task in hand. Communication with the audience however was somewhat blocked because of creative blocks and fear of rejection.
Thinking, solving Problems and Decision Making aspect of capability deals with search for deep understanding and ability to cope with challenges. The writer discovered that while being good at examining evidence and making predictions along with sequencing data there was a gap in making apt connections between different concepts.
Piawa (2010) addressed that being Creative minded is a capability that deals with imagining, inventiveness, risk taking and self learning. The writer demonstrated skills in learning about imbibing from ideas presented by other people and giving ideas realism by demonstrating actionable plans. There was however some difficulty in making apt connections between idea and information and seeking out new angles.
The fourth capability aspect is the skill of working with others, being able to collaborate and sensitise with feelings and ideas of others. Bacanli et al. (2011) illustrated good skill level in showing empathy and cultivating a broad social perspective. There was no difficulty in working with social groups and enjoying group dynamics. There was some difficulty in being able to adapt to radically different ideas but this was considerable helped by Super Heroes idea generation method.
Self Management aspect shows the evaluation of personal strengths and weaknesses and the setting of appropriate goals and targets along with management and regulation of self. The whole CPS process helped writer become more aware of personal weaknesses and strengths and helped in an improved perspective of learning.
One of the earliest definitions of creativity is that is a set of new associations that turn out to be useful and this definition relates the concept of creativity to usability. Ruth Noller at Buffalo State College, Professor of creative studies suggested that creativity is a composite function of interpersonal attitude that looks towards the beneficial and positive aspects. Ruth Noller formula for creativity is
C= fa (K,I,E)
WHERE: k, I, E are knowledge, imagination and evaluation
Barak & Doppelt (2000) opined that Rhodes has used 4 broad and overlapping themes to justify the process of creativity. The themes have defined the characters of creative persons, generic operations inside creative process, final creative result and final outcome. Rhodes stressed on the end to consider all the four elements and the whole system to understand the true picture of creativity
According to Proff Chamarro Premuzuic who is one of the leading pioneers of psychology the concept of creativity is not entirely malleable but it can be boosted by structured intervention. The generic creative capacity of a person is largely dependent on the personality than environmental context but when creativity is domain specific like in certain spheres of management there is a large role played by acquired expertise. This basically translates to the concept that one can learn to be creative while being aided by structured learning and observations (Baker et al. 2001).
 |
Process i.e. Culture, climate and the context
J.P Guilford defined creative characteristics as a composite of traits and personalities which are key characteristics of creative persons. A specific pattern is always evident in behaviour which is creative like inventiveness, designing sensibilities, contriving things, original compositions and ability for effective planning. Chiu (2012) address that the work of Mc Kinnon explained that there were many separate roads under which persons travel to demonstrate their creativity. Rather than putting all creativity as homogenous this allowed the creative expression to be highly individualistic. This commemorates with the class results that all of the team demonstrate their creativity in different levels. However there are some commonly defined characteristics of creative people (Doppelt, 2009).
As an improvement to the CPS process the Simplex method of Problem Solving may be suggested as it doesn’t look at any problem as a discrete entity. Rather Simplex is identified as a continuous loop where the solution merely serves as the beginning stage for a further cycle of improvement.
Moving through all these stages in a systematic manner will help ensure that all the significant problems are solved with the best solutions which are available. This method is known to boost intense creativity.
In today’s business context the idea that it is possible to become creatively aligned at least in area concerning professional interest is slowly gaining prominence (Glassner & Schwarz, 2007). It is possible to use structured problem solving techniques to encourage the creative thinking process. Blocks to creative thinking can also be overcome with the use of a more balanced and disciplined approach where tools like Super Heroes, Role Reversal and Mind Mapping are used.
If you feel that you need help, shoot an email, chat with us, or even send a poke through
Whatsapp/imo: +919830529298
Email/Googletalk: dissertationshelp4u@gmail.com
Or visit: www.dissertationshelp4u.com
#creativityformanagers, #uk, #mba, #bba, #academicwriting, #assignmenthelp
References:
Acar, S. & Runco, M.A., 2012. Creative abilities: Divergent thinking. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity. pp. 115–139.
Bacanli, H. et al., 2011. Quadruple thinking: Creative thinking. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. pp. 536–544.
Baker, M., Rudd, R. & Pomeroy, C., 2001. Relationships between Critical and Creative Thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51, pp.173–188.
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y., 2000. Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26, pp.16–25. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ624290.pdf.
Chiu, F.C., 2012. Fit between future thinking and future orientation on creative imagination. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), pp.234–244.
DeHaan, R.L., 2011. Teaching Creative Science Thinking. Science, 334(6062), pp.1499–1500.
Doppelt, Y., 2009. Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), pp.55–65.
Fink, A. et al., 2007. Creativity meets neuroscience: Experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods, 42(1), pp.68–76.
Glassner, A. & Schwarz, B.B., 2007. What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking?. Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), pp.10–18.
Hong, E. & Milgram, R.M., 2010. Creative Thinking Ability: Domain Generality and Specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), pp.272–287.
Kim, K.H., 2011. The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), pp.285–295.
Lee, K.H., 2005. The relationship between creative thinking ability and creative personality of preschoolers. International Education Journal, 6(2), pp.194–199.
Lindberg, T., Noweski, C. & Meinel, C., 2010. Evolving discourses on design thinking: how design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts: a Journal of Speculative Research, 8(1), pp.31–37.
Mumford, M.D., Medeiros, K.E. & Partlow, P.J., 2012. Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), pp.30–47.
Piawa, C.Y., 2010. Building a test to assess creative and critical thinking simultaneously. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. pp. 551–559.
Runco, M.A. & Acar, S., 2012. Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), pp.66–75.
Comments
Post a Comment