Theoretical Approaches of Creativity - Coursework Example

Theoretical approaches of creativity Creativity refers to novelty of some sort where new things are created or made in a conscious process of thought. Creativity may encompass an idea, a musical, an invention or a business innovation (Mumford, 2003). Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin (1993) define creativity from an organizational context as “the creation of valuable and useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system”. Hence, creativity is a conscious process of innovation. Heerwagen (2002) concurs with Woodman et al (1993) and adds that creativity is the process that leads to the production of something for the first time. The production of something new or something that had not yet been thought of before. The underlying factor in creativity is however that the creation is beneficial in one way or the other (Mumford 2003). This essay evaluates and compares two theoretical approaches of creativity employed in solving problems encountered in the work place. Firstly, this essay provides an overview of these theoretical approaches of creativity. In this case the theoretical perspectives that are examined include; the psychoanalytical theory and the humanistic theory of creativity. Subsequently, this essay evaluates and compares the application of these approaches in problem solving within the workplace setting. Psychoanalytical approach The psychoanalytical approach to creativity proposes that creativity is as a result of individual’s reaction to difficult circumstances. People are motivated to innovate when faced with difficult situations that force them to consciously engage in thought to find solutions to specific problems. Consequently, the experience of difficult situations brings about repressed emotions that in turn serve to jog the minds of individuals to come up with some form of creativity. Furthermore, this approach postulates that people suppress memories of traumatic events and emotions related to such events. However, individuals with such repressed emotions in turn engage their cognitive abilities in conscious thought only to later release these traumatic and emotional tensions through creative avenues (Rzadkiewicz, 2013). According to the psychoanalytic theory of creativity, three perspectives inform the way in which creativity is developed by an individual. First, this theory suggests that feelings of inferiority in an individual contribute to creativity. For instance, when faced with a challenge on how to match up to specific standards individuals may come up with creative ideas to get there. Secondly, that regression of these feelings of inferiority precede the creative process and hence propel it. This is such that feelings of inadequacy push one to desire some form of achievement and this process jump starts the creative nature of an individual. Thirdly, this theory postulates that people are constantly linking their unconscious with the conscious in order to demonstrate creativity .In this way the individual draws from what he interacts with in the environment such as regulations and his internal drive to achieve certain goals. The interplay of both conscious and unconscious thoughts informs the creative process developed by the individual (Rzadkiewicz, 2013). Humanistic approach The Humanistic approach of creativity to a large extent borrows from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Rzadkiewicz,2013; Karkockiene, 2005) that postulates six levels of needs that individuals try to attain. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory proposes that lower levels of needs must be met before advancing to the higher levels. The lower levels include security needs and need for affiliation among others while the highest level of needs in the hierarchy is that of self-awareness and self-actualization which gives a person sense of achievement in life. The humanistic approach to creativity proposes that human beings are naturally creative and that the environment in itself does not influence the creativity of individuals. Therefore, the higher the level of needs an individual can satisfy in the hierarchy the more likely they are to develop some creativity. Furthermore, the humanistic theory postulates that once someone possesses the ability to self-actualise; which happens to be the highest level of needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs framework they can then develop creativity (Rzadkiewicz, 2013). The humanistic approach to creativity therefore stresses that the human capacity for development is central to being creative. This then means that the environment within which the individual finds themselves has very little influence on the creativity they develop. Hence, the creativity levels portrayed by persons is purely dependent on the individuals achievements in satisfying his/her needs with particular regard to the highest level of needs i.e. self-actualisation. This condition having been met, self-actualised people can therefore express themselves fully in creative processes (Karkockiene, 2005). Evaluation and comparison of creativity approaches The work place environment presents several challenges that put the creative capabilities of staff to the test. Drazin et al (1999) note that organizational problems require creativity that is in most circumstances require creative thinking of individuals involved. According to Heerwagen (2002) psychoanalytical theory of creativity is evident in the work setting where employees’ creativity is expressed or suppressed. This suppression or expression of creativity is highly influenced by the specific personal experiences of the individual employees in the work setting. Hence, organisational policies and managerial influences as well as social interactions may influence creativity among employees. Therefore harsh criticism from the management may inhibit employees’ creative skills. Similarly, instances of performance appraisal by management may serve to improve on the employees’ creative skills. Drazin et al (1999) postulate that once inhibiting and promoting factors to creativity are identified in the work place they can then be manipulated to bring about desired creativity among staff. Moreover, based on the psychoanalytical approach, individual staff will compare the consequences and rewards that a specific action may bring about and henceforth initiate the creative process or not. For instance, if the implications of a given course of action or thought is deemed to be positive the individual then engages creative thought in accomplishing his/her goal. On the contrary if repercussions are to be realised instead; the individual then is inhibited from creative thinking as such action or thought is deemed to bring about negative results. The individual consciously engages both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of behaviour action in thought which informs their development in creativeness (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989). Motivation plays a crucial role according to the psychoanalytical theory in nurturing creativity among employees in the workplace. Ambile (1983) explains that motivated staff are more likely to come up with creative ideas than demotivated staff members. For example a reward on performance such as paid holiday trips or leave from work may serve to nurture the development of creative ideas among staff members. Other forms of rewards include monetary rewards and promotions. Nonetheless Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin (1993), postulate that the motivation employed must be geared towards performing a task in which the individual is unaccustomed to as this enhances creativity. On the contrary, if the individual is familiar with the task the chances are that developing creativity becomes minimal as there is no major challenge. The humanistic approach on the other hand proposes that creative ideas in the work place develop as a result of social interactions. For instance by developing feelings of self-esteem an individual is better placed to pitch an idea about a new product or suggestion on an advertising strategy (Drazin et al, 1999). Similarly, feelings of security will serve to boost an individual’s morale in developing creative ideas about improvements in the workplace since they do not have to worry about losing their job. The humanistic approach canters on the individual’s antecedent conditions from which they draw experiences with other personalities. This means that the relationships between an individual and others as opposed to the propositions of the psychoanalytical theory supersedes environmental conditions in determining creativity. Thus, creativity is determined by the level of social interaction that an individual enjoys with persons around them, this in turn has influence over inherent factors such as locus of control and self-esteem that may either encourage or discourage creativity. According to Woodman & Schoenfeldt 1989, antecedent conditions influence personality and cognitive characteristics of the individual and hence determine the current situation in which the individual finds him/herself.’ For instance people with an internal locus of control tend to be highly creative in the workplace as they depict traits of consistency, persistence, curiosity, and intelligence (Amabile 1988; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989). Such individuals are more likely to be innovative in the manner in which they handle certain issues that come to them as challenges in the office environment. Therefore, an individuals’ self-drive is what determines their level of creativity. Conclusion From an organizational context, creativity can be described as the creation of valuable and useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system. This essay has presented an analysis and comparison of the psychoanalytical and humanistic theoretical approaches of creativity, discussed their unique characteristics and how they are applied within the work settings. The psychoanalytical theory as discussed above centres majorly on factors external or in the environment that influence an individual’s creativity. On the other hand the humanistic approach is concerned with inherent factors that inform an individual’s creative nature (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989; Amabile, 1988; Drazin et al, 1999; Heerwagen 2002). References Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 10: 123-167. Green- wich, CT: JAI Press. Drazin, R.Glynn, A.G & Kazanjian, R. (1999). “Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A Sense making Perspective”. Academy of Management Review, 24(2):286-307. Heerwagen, J. H. (2002). Creativity. Understanding creativity: The interplay of biological, psychological and social factors. Retrieved on July 12, 2013 Karkockiene, D. (2005). ‘Creativity: Can it be trained? A scientific Educology of Creativity.’ Retrieved on July 12, 2013 Mumford, M. D. (2003). “Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research”. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120 Rzadkiewicz, C. (2013). The five major theories of creativity. Retrieved on July 12, 2013 Woodman, W.R., Sawyer E.J., & Griffin W.R. (1993). “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity”. Academy of Management Review Journal. 18(2):293-321. Woodman, R.W. & Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interac- tionist perspective. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. 77-92. New York: Plenum Press. Read More