Theories of Creativity and the Creative Problem Solving Process - Coursework Example

Introduction Creativity within the framework of a knowledge-based organization or economy stretches beyond the chain or linear linkage models that have been used in the creativity theories to explain creativity process in organization (Bhagat and Black, 2010). This argument conforms to Chemers (2012) definition of creativity within the realm of modern organizations. He looks at creativity as the result of cumulative but dynamic interaction and learning process that involves managers within the organisations and the stakeholders. Conversely, integrating theories of creativity as they have been recently postulated by contemporary scholars, creativity means a social, spatially embedded, interactive learning process that managers use to solve problems institutions face (Barsh, et al., 2008; Daily and Dalton, 2003). Integrating this definition with theories such as divergent and convergent thinking, it is apparent that for managers to find effectiveness of creativity in the process of solving organizational problems, such theories and or creativity approaches as may be adopted by managers, cannot be understood independently of the organizational and cultural context. This is to mean that creativity must work with theoretical underpinnings. This is the point of departure in this assessment---critically comparing two creative theories (whole brain model and Walla’s model of the creative process) with an aim of assessing how the theoretical approaches can effectively provide impetus and or solutions to problems and challenges managers and organisations face. When this assessment looks at challenges that organisations faced prior to and immediately after the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, there is no doubt that creativity is a core driver for valuation, growth and performance. This is what is postulated by whole brain model theory. That is, there are three distinct building blocks for creativity that managers aiming at averting problems as the one witnessed during the cited financial crisis could do to avoid. The first building block is to formally do the integration of creativity into the strategic management agenda. For instance, the proximate cause of the credit crisis (which this assessment considers to be distinct from the housing crisis) came as a result of the interplay between two choices made by banks---something committed by managers who were not creative enough. This is when integration of creativity into the strategic management agenda becomes a priority and whole brain model. When managers make this approach, creativity is managed, tracked and even measured as a core factor of the organization growth. The second building block as postulated by the same theory is that for managers to be creative in the wake of organizations challenges there need to be creation of conditions that allows dynamic innovations networks to emerge and thrive. This building block can help managers become creative in the wake of problems organisations face in respect to corporate governance practices concerning listed companies. The point is, just like the case of Coca-Cola Company in 2009 there has been ascendancy of financial markets and the intellectual domination as posited by the agency theory into an almost obsessive concern for the issues related to accountability and controls that are involved in the dispersal of ownership of the Company and a rigid focus on the mechanisms that orientated duties of the directors of the Company in light of the theory and still had some connectedness with powers of shareholders and directors (D’Amato and Burke, 2008). While managers faced challenges such as directors tending to be self-interested and to some extend deviate from acts that benefit residual claimants, the theory of whole brain with its second building block suggests that there ought to be dynamic innovations networks especially well established companies such as Coca-Cola having share ownership held and managerial actions attempting to depart from those needed to maximize shareholder returns (Gee, 2010). The third building block of this theory is that for managers to be effective in problem solving, creativity should entail taking explicit steps that foster a culture of innovation by also valuing ideas and collectively overseeing risks. This block as Proctor (2005) adds can be complimented by identification of creativity that is able to drive strategic objectives and growth, add creativity to the formal agenda at regular leadership meetings and setting performance metrics and objectives for creativity. To conceptualise this view, Hartel et al. (2009) argue that managers have powers and duties to initiate and implement policies. Stakeholders within the same organization have the powers to allocate efforts to ratify decisions and monitor resource utilization so as to reflect the tenets and demands of creativity. In the wake of this challenge, problem solving processes of creativity therefore means constructing incentives and rules that can align the behavior of shareholders and mangers with the interest of the organization at heart. Still on the third block, reactions from Aguilera and Jackson (2010) show that it is unrealistic to look at managers as individuals who should be mandated with powers to make significant impact on policy decisions that impact business. Instead, they should just approve such decisions and occasionally provide advice or raise probing questions. The cornerstone of this assertion is that in accordance with whole brain model, the managers have the mandate of limiting divergence from the interests and this is done by establishing necessary incentives for the benefit of the organisation and by taking care of monitoring costs designed to limit opportunistic actions undertaken other competing firms. The conclusion that can be made from whole brain model vis-à-vis the three building blocks is that the unit of creativity is the organization itself and thus managers necessitate such creativity. Again, arguing from the point of view of Basadur and Gelade (2006), the outcome of the creativity may be a process, service or product therefore suggesting that the creativity can be undertaken as a result of the creative inputs of individuals and or the management. Contrariwise, there are a number of ways whole brain model compares and contrasts with other theories such as Walla’s model of the creative process. With Walla’s model of the creative process creativity in the organisation is described as the process that brings about novelty which is accepted as tenable, useful or satisfying by a significant group of others. Within the framework of the first theory or the definition postulated by Chemers (2012) above, this theory differs in its underpinning of creativity in the sense that it attempts to incorporate the process of implementation, thus relying entirely on firms or organizational communication and powers, and as a result or product of such communication process, this theory makes creativity appears as if it is connected to what is seen as new but useful by someone other than its originator. Contemporary schools of thought argue that the best way to understand Walla’s model of the creative process and perhaps compare it with others is first to understand the construct of creativity which should be seen to be remaining exclusive to the relation established between the creator and the product or the line of service offered within the an organization. Secondly, even if this assessment relates creativity to problem definition as the theory explains, creativity and organizational problems become so inseparable that we must agree with Boussouara and Deakins (2000) when they say, “creativity allows managers to have the role in strategy formulation since the theory (put the theory here) emphasizes the crucial importance of such role. Such roles are permitted to necessitate organisations to mitigate self-interests and setting of guidelines of implementing the chosen strategy.” (p. 171). In addition, other than the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model that Basadur and Gelade (2006) developed to support this theory they proposed a new model, the Simplex model that now shows how creativity can help managers deal with problems in organization such as unfair competition, and flooded markets. Basically what Basadur and Gelade propose is a cycle process in three specific phases and eight distinct steps. What sums up Basadur and Gelade model is that creative leaders, preferably those designated by their teams are given interview and their perceptual maps identified in order to have first problem identification. This is where this theory differs with the first one. Unlike the previous one, the creative leaders are not the one mandated or tasked with the responsibility of creating or coming up with ideas. What the manager does in this case is to permanently seek the continuous quality improvement and therefore getting juniors to invest in the constant improvement and enhancement of the performance, which is the essence of this theory according to Chemers (2012). However, scholars such as Barsh et al. (2008) have criticized this criterion positing that adopting this theory may not augur well with organization aiming at doing fiscal decentralization (transferring resources, powers and revenue generating mechanisms to single unit) without considering the structure of the firm. This is actually what failed Nokia Company in 2009 when it adopted this theory of creativity while at the same time doing fiscal decentralization (Chemers 2012). What Chemers realized was that with Nokia revenue enhancement and cost-cutting were not mutually exclusive especially when the Company was healing from the 2008/2009 financial crisis. Walla’s model of the creative process is the solution to the events leading to the current problems in organisations and in particular, they cite that this theory when adopted the creativity in it will prevent the natural regulatory reaction that ultimately prevents a future recurrence of the witnessed spillovers. As a matter of fact, this theory when compared with divergent and convergent thinking helps managers to be creative enough so as to mandate what he terms as ‘higher bank capital standards’ which in turn buffer the economy from financial-sector problems. But there is one thing that Walla’s model of the creative process fails to recognize. This is the fact that this theory, if it must go Walla’s way it will definitely overlook a more fundamental set of problems relating to corporate governance and internal managerial conflicts in banks—broadly termed agency problems in the finance literature. This is where whole brain model stands out to be best especially with organizations that make attempts to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2008/2009. Study by Basadur and Gelade (2006) further conceptualize roles of directors as formulators of strategies essential in listed companies. They investigated top US and European companies including Coca-Cola and Nokia and found that 45% of their directors are actively involved in strategy formulation. The research even categorized these kinds of involvement as Pilot, Trustee and Watchdog. Where under Watchdog directors should focus on evaluating and monitoring strategies after implementation; Trustee on the other hand is when directors play limited role to initiate strategy but bigger one when analyzing and evaluating results. Lastly, Pilot role expects directors to play substantive role in all areas concerning strategy formulations. This being one of the latest research in corporate industries, put to test theories of creativity especially the two under analysis. That is, should managers only become creative as a reaction to difficult circumstance or repressed emotions? The answer to such questions coincides with what Chemers (2012) talked regarding purpose firm. He used a case study of Upland Brewing Company which faced the challenge of agents and principal due to self-motivated interests and managers who were only active when the Company was facing challenges. As a result of this, the problems with creativity theories (information processing and ‘IDEAL’ problem solving process) is that they tend not to challenge managers to come up with contracts that are able to protect interests at the same time maximizing the utility in the event of conflict. Charles Soobroy, information systems and technology at Sony BMG Music Entertainment once argued that when managers are looking for creativity to solve problem that becomes one factor but when the same managers depend on creativity theories to understand the underpinnings in the organsitions then such is risked for modern organisations. Conclusion From the analyses above, theories of creativity and the creative problem solving process has proved to be essential models when dealing with day today challenges in organisations. Additionally, while the creative models and problem solving process have already shown the value of selecting and organizing creative individuals in a workplace or organisations to improve, what remains is how organisations can process a development of organizations that are innovative and creative especially when dealing with complex and non-linear with ups and downs. When such innovations and creations come to existence, they will give rise to culture of innovations with the managements’ total commitment becoming more apparent. References Barsh, J, Capozzi, M.M . & Davidson, J. (2008) Leadership and Innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2008, No 1, p 37-47. Basadur, M. & Gelade, G. (2006). The role of knowledge management in the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 1, 45-61. Bhagat, S. and Black B. (2010). “The Uncertain Relationship between Board Composition and Firm Performance”, The Business Lawyer, 54, 3: 921-963. Boussouara, M. and D. Deakins: 2000, “Trust and Acquisition of Knowledge from Non Executive Directors by High Technology Entrepreneurs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6, 4: 204-226. Chemers, M. 2012. Efficacy and Effectiveness: Interpreting Models of Leadership and Intelligence. In R. Riggio, S. Murphy, and F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership. (pp.139-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daily, C. M. and D. R. Dalton: 2003, “Dollars and Sense: The Path to Board Independence”, Journal of Business Strategy, 24, 3: 41-43. D’Amato, A. & Burke, M. J. (2008). Psychological and organizational climate research: Contrasting perspectives and research traditions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 1, 1-4. Gee, S. (2006) Technology transfer, innovation and international competitiveness. New York: John Wiley. Hartel, J., Schmidt, F. & Keyes, L. (2009). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship with business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies (205-224). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Proctor, T. 2005. Creative problem solving for managers (4th eds). Routledge: London. This textbook is available from the University Co-op bookshop. Read More