Critical factors for enhancing creativitity - 2001.pdf

7/23/2019 Critical factors for enhancing creativitity - 2001.pdf

1/17

Strat. Change 10: 267 283 (2001)DOI:10.1002/jsc.542

Critical factors for enhancingcreativityElspeth McFadzean

Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK

This article explores five factorsthat can influence creative thinking: namely Judgement:

Freewheeling: Association: Stimulation and Expression.

These factors are used to develop a framework in order to categorize, compare andcontrast different creative problem-solving techniques.

The three categories developed in the framework are paradigm-preserving techniques,

paradigm-stretching techniques and paradigm-breaking techniques.

A number of practical implications are then presented including training, teambuilding

and the reduction of apprehension and cognitive inertia.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

According to Carnall (1995), managers facecomplex and challenging pressures andopportunities. They must ensure the efficientuse of resources and find ways of guar-

anteeing the long-term effectiveness of the

organizations for which they work. Planningand implementing change is therefore one of

the main challenges facing managers today(Dyer, 1997; Goodstein, 1997).

Organizational change can be a demand-ing and difficult process that requires both

adaptation and effort (McDonald, 2000).It includes effective planning and imple-

mentation as well as imaginative thinkingand creative solutions. In addition, change

management also encompasses the need toensure that all those who are affected by

the change are involved in the process (Jick,

1993; Coetsee, 1999).

* Correspondence to: Dr Elspeth McFadzean, AssociateFaculty, Henley Management College, Greenlands,Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 3AU, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Change management

encompasses the needto ensure that all those

who are affected bychange are involved in

the process

Developing imaginative solutions for bothplanning and implementing change can

be undertaken by utilizing individual orgroup creative problem-solving techniques

(McFadzean et al., 1998; Couger, 1995).Consequently, there has been a great deal

written on creativity in the management lit-erature (VanGundy, 1988; De Bono, 1992;

Von Oech, 1983; McFadzean, 1998a; Ama-

bile, 1983a; Evans, 1993; Anderson, 1992).Numerous techniques have been developed,

which have been used to greater or lesssuccess (McFadzean, 1998b,c; Sutton and

Hargadon, 1996). For example, Alfred Sloan

used the technique of problem reversal to

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2001


2/17

268 Elspeth McFadzean

develop ideas that could help him turn thenear-bankrupt General Motors around. Atthat time it had always been assumed that

customers had to pay for their cars beforethey drove them away. Sloan reversed thisassumption so that the consumer could payfor the car while driving it, thus paving the

way for the pioneering concept of instal-ment buying. In addition, Sloan reversed theassumption that all companies were run byone powerful individual. He created a multi-layered management structure that allowedfor innovative decision making while stillmaintaining overall control.

Argus Camera also used a creative prob-lem-solving technique brainstormingto develop methods of economizing onpurchasing (LeBoeuf, 1980). The managersundertook three idea-generation sessionsand produced a number of practicalideas that could yield savings of $46 000per year. In addition, IDEO, the largestproduct design-consulting firm in theUnited States, have used creative idea-generation techniques to develop new andinnovative products (Sutton and Hargadon,

1996). In the past, these have includedCrest toothpaste tubes, the original Applecomputer mouse, Nike sunglasses, a motorscooter and a carbon-fibre bicycle wheel.

It is, however, sometimes difficult to ascer-tain which techniques should be used and

what output can be generated from a par-ticular technique. For example, McFadzean(1996) and Garfieldet al. (1997) have foundthat some creative problem-solving tech-niques encourage participants to develop

more creative ideas than other ones. Theaim of this paper is to establish the criti-cal success factors that can be utilized forenhancing creative thinking. Thus, facili-tators and/or team members will be able tochoose a technique that will be beneficial andeffective for their particular circumstances.

This paper explores five success factors,namelyJudgement, Freewheeling,Associ-

ation,Stimulation and Expression. Thesefactors are then used to develop a frame-

work for creativity, called the creativity

continuum. This framework provides a

structure for facilitators and can help them

to choose appropriate techniques for their

group sessions. Finally, some implications

for facilitators are presented.

Enhancing creative thinking

There have been many definitions of creativ-

ity. For example, according to Suler (1980,

p. 144),

The creative act can be conceptualized

as a special form of interaction betweenprimary and secondary process thinking

in which a novel idea or insight is

generated by the loose, illogical and

highly subjective ideation of primary

process and is then molded by secondary

process into a context that is socially

appropriate and meaningful to others.

This is essentially a cognitive explanation of

creativity, which can in part explain the pro-

cess of creativity (Woodman and Schoenfeldt,1990). However, some theorists argue that

definitions that focus on the attributes of the

creative product are more useful for both the-ory building and empirical analysis (Amabile,

1983b; Busse and Mansfield, 1980; Mum-

ford and Gustafson, 1988). Amabile (1988, p.

126), for example, suggests that:

Creativity is the production of novel and

useful ideas by an individual or small

group of individuals working together.

Thus creativity includes both novelty and

value (Ford, 1996).

The use of creativity techniques and the

development of novel ideas have helped

many organizations both to improve the

quality of their products and procedures as

well as to expand their current product or

service portfolios (Kruczek, 1997; Cormier,

1999; Hargadon and Sutton, 2000; Moore

and Garg, 1997; Dennis et al., 1990). For



3/17

Critical factors for enhancing creativity 269

The use of creativity

techniques havehelped manyorganizations to

improve the quality oftheir products and

procedures

example, Federal Express found that byintroducing an information systems creativity

improvement programme their level of cre-ative output doubled, the companys climatefor creativity was enhanced and their use ofcreativity techniques helped generate highlycost-effective ideas. (Cougeret al., 1994).

Creative thinking can be influenced by anumber of factors. McFadzean (1999a) forexample, suggests that the creative productiv-ity of a group can be affected by the following

variables: judgement, freewheeling, associa-tion, stimulation and expression.

Judgement

Researchers have found that interactivegroups are less effective than nominal groupsat producing novel ideas (Tayloret al., 1958;Lamm and Trommsdorff, 1973; Madsen andFinger, 1978; Fern, 1982; Hill, 1982). A nom-inal group comprises individuals who gener-ate ideas alone before pooling their results

with the rest of the group (Mongeau andMorr, 1999). Diehl and Stroebe (1987) and

Nunamaker et al. (1991) suggest that onereason for this discrepancy is what is termedprocess losses. These are actions under-taken by the group participants that impairthe output of the group. They include, forexample, evaluation apprehension, produc-tion blocking and participant dominance.Evaluation apprehension occurs when mem-bers withhold suggestions because they arefrightened of negative criticism (Diehl andStroebe, 1987). In an effort to reduce eval-uation apprehension many idea-generation

techniques suspend evaluation until after

the idea-development phase has been con-cluded (Osborn, 1957). Inappropriate judge-ment or criticism can severely disrupt the

free flow of ideas, thus reducing the num-ber of unique and novel ideas generated(VanGundy, 1988). The evaluation of ideasshould always be undertaken later in theproblem-solving process, when idea gener-ation has been completed and the numberof ideas need to be reduced (Johnson, 1955;Mintzberget al., 1976; VanGundy, 1992).

Group leaders and facilitators must there-fore take steps to reduce evaluation appre-hension among the group members. This

can be achieved by enforcing the no-criticism rule (Mongeau and Morr, 1999;Osborn, 1957), utilizinganonymouscreativeproblem-solving techniques (Aiken et al.,1997; McFadzean, 1999a) or using a groupsupport system (Dennis and Valacich, 1993;Nunamakeret al., 1991). For instance, Brain-

writing is a useful creative problem-solvingtechnique because individuals can write theirideas down on a piece of paper, whichpreserves a degree of anonymity, thus reduc-ing evaluation apprehension (McFadzean,

1998b). In addition, this technique is ben-eficial because the participants do notneed to wait to speak if someone elseis already talking and all their ideas arerecorded (Aiken et al., 1997, McFadzean,1996). Group support systems use the sameprinciple of anonymity to reduce evaluationapprehension.

Freewheeling

Freewheeling encourages group members todevelop as many ideas as possible. An ideathat may seem impractical may contain agerm of a great solution. In addition, Osborn(1957) suggests that the quantity of ideas

will ultimately yield quality. In other words,the more ideas generated, the more likely it isthat the group will produce some good ones.

For example, The Royal Dutch/Shell Groupencourages employees to pitch ideas overe-mail (Stepanek and Weber, 1999). Every

week, six groups of six participants meet at

the Exploration & Production Divisions in



4/17


Houston and in Rijswijk, the Netherlands,to contemplate and discuss these ideas. In1999, these teams, known as GameChangers,

looked at over 320 ideas sent to them by thecompanys employees. These ideas rangedfrom ways to reduce company paperwork tousing laser sensors to discover oil. The resultsof this initiative have been excellent. Accord-ing to Stepanek and Weber (1999, p. 55):

Of Shells five top business initiativesin early 1999, four emerged from the

GameChanger teams. Now, those projectsare bringing in millions of dollars.

Shells new Light Touch oil-discovery

method for example, helps explorers bysensing hydrocarbon emissions released

naturally into the air from undergroundreserves. The laser technology helped

locate some 30 million barrels of oilreserves in Gabon last year.

There are however, some process lossesthat can reduce or inhibit freewheeling.These include production blocking and par-ticipant dominance. Production blockingoccurs in an interacting group because only

one member can communicate at any onetime (Diehl and Stroebe, 1987; Briggs andNunamaker, 1996). There are a numberof consequences that occur as a result ofproduction blocking (Dennis and Valacich,1993). First, group members will be con-stantly listening to their fellow memberscontributions and cannot therefore easilythink about new ideas for fear of missingother peoples views (attention blocking).Second, members who are unable to speak

when their ideas occur may forget or sup-press them because later on they feel they areless relevant or original (attenuation block-ing). Finally, members may use their time toremember their ideas rather than thinkingup new ones (concentration blocking).

According to Nunamaker et al. (1991,p. 46), domination occurs when: Some

group member(s) exercise undue influence

or monopolize the groups time in anunproductive manner.

To reduce these process losses, the

group can use a technique that allows

the participants to talk and listen atthe same time. For example, two formsof brainwriting poolwriting and gallery

writing permit participants to write downtheir ideas on paper. When they run out ofideas they can look at the statements writtenby other group members. These techniquesalso negate participant domination becausenobody can monopolize the conversation orinfluence the proceedings.

Association

A process facilitator must encourage groupmembers to combine and improve their

ideas. The participants can then build onprevious ideas called piggybacking or freeassociation and look for ways of combin-ing two or more ideas to generate a thirdidea not thought of previously.

Free association encourages the stimula-tion of ideas but it tends to rely on thegroup members past experiences or theimmediate physical or social environment(VanGundy, 1988). As a result, participantstend to build on and further develop existing

ideas but do not necessarily change them sig-nificantly (McFadzean, 1999a). Forced asso-ciation, however, can encourage group mem-bers to generate more novel and imaginativeideas by coercing two or more elementstogether. These elements may or may notbe related to one another or to the prob-lem (McFadzean, 1999b). VanGundy (1988,p. 75) states that:

As a general guideline, elements that are

related to each other and to the problem

will be more likely to produce practicalideas than more unrelated elements.

However, the ideas produced by using

related elements are likely to be more

mundane and less unique than ideas

produced with unrelated elements.

McFadzean (1996), Garfield et al. (1997)and Bouchard (1972) found that groups

who used unrelated stimuli to inspire cre-ativity produced more unique and novelideas than groups who only used related

stimuli. For example, scientists have been



5/17


inspired by forcing together a fan and askirt and envisaging a craft that could runacross water (the hovercraft). Likewise, by

forcing together the telephone and the com-puter, scientists have developed the Internet(McFadzean et al., 1998). Amazon.com havealso used association, namely booksellingand the Internet, to develop their business. Inaddition, Fujifilm have developed a cameraby placing three different products together.The FinePix 40I can produce high-quality dig-ital photographs, it can allow its user to shoota mini-movie with sound and it can play MP3audio files from CDs on the Web.

Stimulation

Creativity also consists of another importantelement: perception. Perception helps us todevelop a view of the world. This pictureor paradigm explains the world to us andhelps us predict and anticipate behaviour.However, when a person views the worldfrom one paradigm, it can be very difficult toimagine it from another. According to Barker

(1992, p. 37):

A paradigm in a sense tells you that

there is a game, what the game is, and

how to play it successfully. The idea of a

game is a very appropriate metaphor for

paradigms because it reflects the need for

borders and directions on how to perform

correctly. A paradigm tells you how to

play the game according to the rules.

Perception is necessary, therefore, because

it helps people to develop sequenced pat-terns, without which it would be difficult

When a person viewsthe world from one

paradigm, it can bevery difficult toimagine it from

another

to survive. For example, a man decidedto ascertain how many ways he could getdressed in the morning using his standard

eleven items of clothing (de Bono, 1991).He programmed his computer to make thecalculation. The computer took 45 hours toshow that out of the 39 million possible waysof putting on 11 items of clothing only about5000 were possible. This is because shoes,for example, cannot be put on before socksand so on. However, although there is thishuge number of possible combinations, wedo not sit down and work out a strategy forgetting dressed. We know how to do this

through experience.According to Bruce and Young (1998,p. 47):

Our usual, stable perceptions arise

because assumptions and knowledge

about the world can be used to help

decipher retinal images. . . At any partic-

ular instant in time, the retinal image is

ambiguous, since many different scenes

could result in the same image. Artists

such as M. C. Escher and Salvador Dali

have exploited the ambiguous and uncer-tain nature of seeing by producing images

with multiple interpretations.

In other words, there are some artists thathave drawn pictures that can help us changeour perceptions. In fact, Edwards (1993, p. 3)believes that drawing ability itself, is in partdue to the ability to make a shift in brain stateto a different way of seeing or perceiving. Sheclaims:

When you see in the special way inwhich experienced artists see, then you

can draw. This is not to say that the

drawings of great artists such as Leonardo

da Vinci or Rembrandt are not still

wondrous because we know something

about the cerebral process that went intotheir creation. Indeed, scientific research

makes master drawings seem even more

remarkable because they seem to cause

the viewer to shift to the artists mode of

perceiving. But the basic skill of drawing

is also accessible to everyone who can



6/17


learn to make the shift to the artists

mode and see in the artists way. (Originalauthors emphasis)

In the same way, problem solving andvisioning can also be improved by changingthe participants perception or paradigm.This is illustrated by de Bono (1992, p. 60):

I was teaching a class of 30 students

who were between 10 and 11 years old.

I asked them what they thought of the

idea of being paid, say $5 a week, to

go to school. All 30 students liked the

idea very much and told how they would

buy sweets, chewing gum, comics, and soon. I then introduced [the technique of

Plus, Minus and Interesting (PMI)] and

asked them systematically to go througheach part in small groups of five students.

At the end of four minutes I asked for

their thinking. The Plus points were asbefore. But now there were Minus points.

The bigger boys might attack the youngerboys and take the money. The school

might raise the charge for lunch. Parents

would be less inclined to give presents.

Where would the money come from? There

would be less money for teachers, and

so on. There were also some Interesting

points. Would the payment be withheld

if school performance was poor? Would

older students get more? At the end of

this simple exercise, 29 of the 30 students

had reversed their opinion and decided it

was a bad idea. The important point tonote is that I did not discuss the matter

with the students or argue with them.

I simply presented the students with aperceptual scanning tool and asked them

to use it. As a result of using the tool

they got a broader perception. As a result

of the broader perception they changed

their judgement.

This method encouraged the children toview this challenge not just from their ownperspectives but from the perspectives ofothers. These included the perspectives ofother children, both older and younger, their

parents and their teachers. In this way the

children were able to make a more balancedjudgement.

One method of encouraging a shift in

perception is to utilize unrelated stimuli.These are stimuli that are not related to theproblem. VanGundy (1988) and McFadzeanet al. (1998) suggest that techniques that useunrelated stimuli are more likely to producemore novel ideas than techniques that utilizerelated stimuli. The research undertaken byMcFadzean (1996) and Garfieldet al. (1997)supports this conclusion. Kelly Services, aglobal provider of staffing solutions, usedstimulation to improve its own processes

so that the company could meet the needsof its customers more adequately (Rodier,2000). The process engineers undertakingthe project believed that best practicescould be found both within the companyin departments with similar processes andin departments that performed industrialengineering functions outside the company.These best practices were then used asstimuli to develop ideas that can be usedto improve their own processes.

Other companies use toys and games to

stimulate new ideas. For example, Enronand Peoples Energy, two American gascompanies, have used toys to help themto generate ideas on future possibilities ofnatural gas (Umbrell, 1999). The Liberty ToyCompany has also found that the best way ofencouraging employees to talk freely and todevelop novel ideas is to give them toys toplay with. According to Hemsath and Yerkes(1997, p. 100):

Liberty Toy has realized that a funicebreaker is sometimes the best start to

a productive meeting. They have given

their staff many different toys to play

with but by far the most popular are the

toy guns and darts. These are also useful

in relieving tension and conflict within

the group.

Expression

A metaphor that is often used when dis-

cussing creativity is the brains duality. Our



7/17


left hemisphere analyses, marks time, counts,abstracts, makes rational statements based onlogic, plans step-by-step procedures and ver-

balizes. Our right hemisphere, on the otherhand, creates new combinations, under-stands metaphors, dreams and visualizesimages (Edwards, 1993). This metaphor hasbeen developed from scientific research intothe human brain. Although our brains aresimilar, they are not the same. For exam-ple, 99% of right-handers and 70% of left-handers have their speech centre in theirbrains left hemisphere. Of the remainingright-handers, 2% have language located

in their right hemisphere and 8% medi-ate language in both hemispheres. Whereas,of the remaining 30% of left-handers, halfhave their speech centre located in theright hemisphere and half mediate lan-guage in both hemispheres (Edwards, 1993).In general, however, speech is located inthe left side of the brain the logical,step-by-step side whereas imagination,

visualizing and dreaming are generallylocated in the right side of the brain. Conse-quently, more unusual modes of communi-

cation or expression can be used to releasecreative thinking. These can include drawing,acting, dreaming, dancing and singing.

For instance, Finke (1990, 1996) foundthat participants could develop very creativeinventions by using imagery. He designatedthree random shapes, such as a cylinder,half a sphere and a wavy line, to each ofthe participants. They were then asked tocombine these shapes to construct whatFinke called preinventive forms. Next, the

participants were given a designated objectcategory such as furniture or toys andgames. Using this category, they were askedto interpret their preinventive forms asrepresenting some kind of practical deviceor object that could belong to this category.Thus, a number of creative inventions weredeveloped such as a contact lens remover ora tension wind vane (Finke, 1990).

Graphic facilitators are also being usedto help organizations enhance their cre-ative thinking (Slater and Dolven, 2000).

For example, Hewlett-Packard and the

telecomms company Newbridge Networksare using visual aids to turn the traditionallogic of business meetings upside-down.

Hewlett-Packard areusing visual aids toturn the traditional

logic of businessmeetings upside-down

The participants generate and discuss goals,obstacles and ideas while the facilitator drawsimages on a large piece of paper on the

wall. He or she coaxes out themes, impres-sions and opinions from the participants that

would not emerge from normal idea genera-tion sessions. One group at Hewlett-Packardused the metaphor of a garage to sym-bolize home-grown invention. Using arrowsleading to and from the shed, the partici-pants were able to generate ideas on what

needed to be accomplished within the nextyear. A customer-service manager also used

a warlike image as a metaphor for reachingcustomers. This image, however, encouragedthe manager to change his perspective awayfrom cluster-bombing the customer into astrategy that was much less aggressive (Slaterand Dolven, 2000).

In summary, therefore, creativity can beencouraged by:

Freewheeling so that participants produceas many ideas as possible (quantity breedsquality)

Combining or changing ideas (associa-tion)

Suspending judgement Utilizing unrelated stimuli and Using unusual modes of expression (see

Figure 1).

These creativity factors can be used todevelop a framework for creativity. This is

discussed in the next section.



8/17


Suspend Judgement

Ideas

Freewheeling Association

Expression Stimulation

Figure 1.A model of creativity.

Developing a framework forcreativity

The above factors can be used to develop aframework for creative techniques. Two ofthese factors, freewheeling and the suspen-sion of judgement, are similar for all creativeproblem-solving techniques. The other threefactors, however, differ depending on the

techniques that are utilized.

Paradigm-preserving techniques

Some creative problem-solving techniquesdo not actively encourage participants to

view the problem from a different perspec-tive. These are called paradigm-preservingtechniques and include procedures such asbrainstorming and brainwriting. Brainstorm-ing uses free association, verbal expressionand related stimuli to encourage idea gen-

eration. Thus, participants produce a freeflow of ideas. For example, the AdvertisingClub in Cleveland undertook a brainstorm-ing session to develop effective methods ofpublishing Opera Week and to encouragethe public to buy tickets (LeBoeuf, 1980).The participants generated 124 ideas of

which 29 were implemented. In addition,LeBoeuf (1980) ran a brainstorming ses-sion for a management executive team whohad a problem regarding engineering short-ages. In 25 minutes the group generated 110

ideas of which 6 were good enough to be

implemented. This free flow of ideas, how-ever, can be likened to railway tracks. A teammember suggests one idea. This idea sparksoff another idea that is similar to the firstand so on. This is comparable to laying onepiece of track, then joining on another andanother and another. Occasionally there willbe spur lines or new, separate tracks cre-ated. Streams and rivers flowing down a hill

illustrate the same concept. The ideas tendto flow in ruts and form relatively linearpatterns. This occurs because each idea actsas a stimulus for subsequent ideas and eachof these ideas is related to the problem itself(see Figure 2). Thus, these related stimulido not force the user to change his or herperception of the situation. Likewise, verbalor written expression does not encouragethe participants to reframe their ideas either.Consequently, brainstorming and brainwrit-

ing do not have the relevant factors to forcegroup members to view the problem or sit-uation from a different angle. Thus, thesetechniques tend to preserve the paradigm.

There are a number of techniques thatdo encourage reframing. These are calledparadigm-stretching and paradigm-breakingtechniques.

Paradigm-stretching techniques

There are many different techniques that

can encourage participants to stretch their



9/17


Problem

Paradigm

PreservingTechnique

Free Association

Verbal/Written Expression

Related

Stimuli

Paradigm

Preserving Ideas

Figure 2.Paradigm-preserving techniques (adapted from McFadzean, 1996).

present paradigm. McFadzean (1998b, p. 40),describes one example called Object

Stimulation:

(1) The problem statement is written on aflipchart.

(2) The group members are asked to developa list of objects that are completelyunrelated to the problem.

(3) Each individual then needs to select oneobject and describe it in detail. Thegroup should use each description asa stimulus to generate new and novelideas.

(4) The facilitator should write each ideadown.

(5) This process should continue until eachgroup member has described an objector until each object has been described.

(6) The ideas are then related back to theproblem and developed further.

This technique is similar to brainstormingand brainwriting in that it utilizes either ver-bal or written expression. However, the stim-ulation and the association used are different.

Object stimulation encourages creativity byusing unrelated stimuli and forced associa-tion. McFadzean (1998b) gives an exampleof how object stimulation can be used. First,the problem statement is developed: Howcan we attract more customers to our cardealership? Next, an object is chosen thatis completely unrelated to the problem. Inthis instance, the board game Monopoly ischosen. The object is described:

Monopoly is about making money.

It is fun to play.

Anybody can play it. It is for all ages. It is colourful and fun to look at.

You make your own decisions about whatto buy. You can develop your own range of

property.

These ideas are then related back to theproblem (forced association):

We can make our dealership a much morefun experience by selling other products.

We can encourage families by offering acreche service or a nursery room.

We can make the forecourt more interest-ing and inviting. For example, we couldrun computer car races for potential cus-tomers.

We can reduce high-pressure sales tech-niques and allow customers to make uptheir own minds.

We could allow customers to build theirown car on a computer i.e. develop theirown custom-made car complete with allthe extras that they want.

Thus, object stimulation encourages par-ticipants to stretch their existing paradigmby developing ideas that are unrelated tothe problem. These are then related backto the problem and developed further (seeFigure 3).

There are a number of different paradigmstretching techniques including metaphors,rolestorming, heuristic ideation techniqueand assumption reversals (McFadzean,1998b). Couger (1995) used metaphors as

a tool for developing novel ideas in a



10/17


Problem

Paradigm

Stretching

Technique

Free Association

Verbal/Written Expression

Relate Ideas Back to Problem: Forced Association

Unrelated

Stimuli

Ideas

Paradigm Stretching Ideas

Figure 3. Paradigm-stretching techniques (adapted from McFadzean, 1998c). Reproduced by permission ofBlackwell Publishers.

petroleum company. An information systemsdepartment in a petroleum company neededto motivate employees to adopt computeraided software engineering (CASE) tools that

simplify the development of new softwareapplications. Members of the technology-assessment group were given the responsi-bility for solving this problem. The facilitatordecided to use metaphors to help partici-pants generate useful and novel ideas. Themetaphor the group used was: Dislike ofcanned spinach. The participants identifiedfactors relating to the dislike of spinach thatincluded:

Taste for example, the taste is subdued

compared to beans; Appearance for example, spinach isdull compared to carrots;

Contribution to health for example,there is more iron provided by breakfastcereal than in spinach, and so on.

The group then used these items to generateideas pertaining to the problem statement.For instance:

Taste some of the activities of CASEtools are subdued and less enjoyable than

those of the existing methodology;

Appearance the thought of using CASEtools is not as attractive as using theirfavourite approach;

Health converting to using CASE tools

is not necessarily seen as improving theirhealth, that is, their security within thedepartment.

The group explored each of the resultingissues and developed solutions to counter-act them, for example to emphasize otherpleasurable activities by pointing out thatusing CASE tools will speed up the pro-cess, giving users more time for other activ-ities, such as designing the system. Mem-bers of the group were impressed with

this technique, stating that it gave theman approach to identifying and resolvingthe problem that was both complete andcomprehensive.

Paradigm-breaking techniques

Another method of reframing a situationis to use a form of expression other than

verbal or written language. This may includerole playing, drawing or dreaming. One suchmethod is called rich pictures (McFadzean,

1998b):



11/17


(1) The group members are asked to write abrief statement of the problem.

(2) The facilitator then asks each individual

to draw two pictures. The picturesmay be a metaphor of the situation,e.g. a vehicle or an animal. The first

drawing would be a picture of howeach participant would like to see the

situation in the future. The secondpicture would be a drawing of how theparticipants see the present situation.

(3) Each participant is asked to describe thepicture of the present first. Not onlyshould he or she describe the picture

but a description should also be givenof the properties of the objects drawnand why they have been drawn that

way. Next, a description of the pictureof the future should be given. Again, theproperties and the relationships of the

objects should be described.(4) From the descriptions given by the

participants new ideas can then begenerated.

McFadzean et al. (1998) described theresults that one financial company obtained

by utilizing this technique. For the purposesof this paper, the company will be calledCompany A. A group of fifteen participants

met to explore the companys strategy onmarketing and promotions. The companyhad found that their customers tended to

receive large amounts of marketing litera-ture, much of which is ignored. The group

was asked to explore this issue and todevelop some ideas that could help themto solve the problem. The group was dividedinto two. The facilitator asked the first group

to draw a picture pertaining to future mar-keting services. The second group was askedto draw a pictorial representation of how

it saw the present marketing services. Bothgroups were given 30 minutes to completetheir task. The second group drew a picture

of a circuit board. This represented the con-flicting messages that existed between the

business units and the policy makers at head

office. These conflicting messages resulted in

poor information dissemination, which con-sequently resulted in the banks customersgetting inundated with inappropriate mar-

keting material from different departments inthe bank. The first group developed an inter-esting pictorial representation of the future.McFadzeanet al. (1998, p. 43) describe theresults as follows:

The Future group had much more fun

in developing their picture. In fact, the

picture represented a rosy future, with

a ship (called Company A) sailing in

calm waters. Above its head were asmiling, bright yellow sun and a satellite.

On the shore were happy sunbatherseating ice cream and enjoying themselves.

Further out to sea, however, the waterwas not so calm. There in the choppy

sea were other boats (representing their

competitors) flailing around uncertainly.

The sunbathers, representing Company

As customers, were happy and content.The satellite scanned the beach to see

who was out of ice cream and, when

appropriate, the Good Ship Company A

would offer their customers the servicethey desired when they desired it. At the

presentation, one group member likened

Company A to Microsoft Windows click

on it when you need it and it will be

there, but when the customer does notneed it, it will remain firmly in the

background.

In order to develop as much informationabout the situation as possible, the facili-tator must be skilful at teasing out infor-

mation from the participants. For instance,in the above example, the sun was brightyellow and smiling. One question the facil-itator could have asked was: Why was the

sun smiling? This could have representeda change of culture in the company or aneed for staff motivation. However, even ifthe participant had only made the sun smilefor no other reason than creative licence,by asking the question, the facilitator forcesthe participants to think about the situationand to develop new ideas. Paradigm-breaking

techniques therefore, encourage the group



12/17


Paradigm Breaking Ideas

Problem

Paradigm

BreakingTechnique

Free Association

Multiple Expression

Relate Ideas Back to Problem: Forced Association

Unrelated

Stimuli

Ideas

Figure 4. Paradigm-breaking techniques (adapted from McFadzean, 1998c). Reproduced by permission ofBlackwell Publishers.

members by using unusual forms of expres-sion and unrelated stimuli. New ideas aredeveloped, which can then be linked backto the problem. These can then be devel-

oped further in order to construct potentialsolutions (seeFigure 4).

Practical implications

There are therefore three different categoriesof creative problem solving techniques.The first, which includes, brainstorming

and brainwriting, utilizes verbal or writtenexpression, free association and related stim-

uli. Consequently, there is no provocationor stimulation that forces the participantsto view the problem or situation from adifferent perspective. In other words, these

techniques tend to preserve the participantsexisting paradigm. Object stimulation, onthe other hand, utilizes forced associationand unrelated stimuli as well as written

or verbal expression. Thus, by using dif-ferent objects, participants are encouragedto look at the problem from a numberof different perspectives. Object stimula-

tion therefore, assists participants to stretch

their current paradigms. Finally, rich pic-

tures utilizes forced association, unrelatedstimuli and a more unusual method of

expression, that of drawing. This helps par-

ticipants to completely smash their present

paradigms. Consequently, creative problemsolving techniques can be placed on a con-

tinuum ranging from paradigm preservingtechniques to paradigm breaking techniques

(seeFigure 5).

Thus, the creativity continuum presents a

number of implications for facilitators andmanagers. These are:

(1) Creative stimulation McFadzean(1996) and Garfield et al. (1997) found

that techniques such as object stimu-lation encouraged participants to gen-

erate many more novel, as well as

good quality, ideas than techniques such

as brainstorming and brainwriting. Inother words, paradigm-stretching and

paradigm-breaking techniques encour-

age group members to produce more

creative ideas because they force themto view the problem or situation from

different perspectives.



13/17


PARADIGM

PRESERVING

PARADIGM

STRETCHING

PARADIGM

BREAKING

Can be used by experienced

and inexperienced groups

Groups require some

experience

Should only be used by

experienced groups

Group Experience

Problem Boundaries Unchanged Stretched Broken

Potential Apprehension Low Medium High

NecessaryUse of Imagination Not necessary Necessary

Expression Verbal/Written Verbal/Written Verbal/Written/Role-Playing/ Drawing/Visioning

Unrelated Stimuli Fantasy and Unrelated StimuliStimuli Related Stimuli

Free AssociationAssociation of

Information

Free and Forced

Association

Free and Forced

Association

Creative Stimulation Low Medium High

Freewheeling Encourage Encourage Encourage

Judgement Suspend until appropriate

time

Suspend until

appropriate time

Suspend until appropriate

time

Reduction in

Cognitive Inertia

Low Medium High

Figure 5. The creativity continuum. Reprinted by permission, Elspeth McFadzean, Creativity in MS/OR:Choosing the Appropriate Technique,Interfaces, Vol. 29 No. 5, SeptemberOctober 1999, Copyright (1999).The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, 901 Elkridge Landing Road, Suite 400,Linthicum, MD21090, USA.

(2) Cognitive inertia this occurs whenthe discussion moves along one trainof thought without deviating becausegroup members refrain from contribut-ing comments that are not directlyrelated to the current theme. By utilizing

techniques that use unrelated stimuli,facilitators can encourage participants todevelop a variety of different and novelideas. In other words, group members

are forced out of their usual modes ofthinking.

(3) Apprehension group members whoare apprehensive about generating what

they see as absurd or ridiculous ideascan be encouraged by using methodsthat are anonymous such as brainwritingor electronic brainstorming. In addition,

participants must be taught the benefits

of using paradigm transforming tech-

niques. Many may see them as foolish or a

waste of time. Consequently, facilitators

must be able to demonstrate the value of

these methods.

(4) Team building team members who

are aware of the behavioural and emo-tional aspects of group work tend to

be more supportive of one another. On

the other hand, group members who

are only attentive to the task will work

towards their goal(s) diligently but will

take very little notice of the intricacies

of behaviour (McFadzean, 1998d). This

has a number of implications for the use

of creative problem solving techniques.

According to McFadzean (1999a, p. 121),

for example:



14/17


Asking participants to use imagina-

tion and unfamiliar forms of expres-

sion can make them feel uncomfort-

able, and therefore such techniquescan be ineffective and may cause

animosity within the group. It is

therefore vital that only cohesive,

experienced groups, whose members

have high levels of trust and commit-

ment to each other, should use these

techniques.

Thus, less experienced groups are happyto use paradigm preserving techniques

because these techniques are familiarand comfortable. Groups which havebeen working together for longer peri-ods, or which are more open and honestand like to work with more diverse andunusual techniques may find paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-niques more beneficial.

(5) Process congruence according toMcFadzean et al. (1999), process con-gruence is very important especially ifthe facilitator wishes to use paradigm-

stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-niques. If, for example, the facilitatorasks a group to undertake a techniquethat the participants feel uncomfortable

with then at best, the procedure will tendto be less effective and at worst, somegroup members will refuse to participate(McFadzean, 1996). This will thereforeresult in a dysfunctional group and anunproductive process.

(6) Ground rules it is very important to

develop ground rules with the groupand to display them at all times. Forexample, Hicks (1991, p. 50) presentsa number of ground rules for creativethinking. These are:

Welcome every idea no matter howwild it is it has some merit. If nothingelse it will fire our imagination orsomeone elses imagination.

Hold back on criticizing an idea re-member that it is difficult enough

to get an idea past our self-censor,

so dont be too quick to criticizesomebody elses idea. And make sure

you understand another persons idea

before you evaluate it. Remember that we always have some

knowledge or experiences that canhelp us solve a given problem.

Dont be afraid to indulge in somechildlike behaviour as in wishing,imagining, mental playfulness etc.

Never forget that other people per-ceive problem situations in waysdifferent from you treat this asan advantage, a way of helping

you establish which is the mostappropriate one to work with. Always think of a mistake or failure as

an opportunity to learn, not as a thingwe didwrong. If we just forget aboutit we could do it again!

(7) Training in creative problem solv-ing this can not only help to show the

value of the different types of creativeproblem solving techniques but train-ing can also help participants to develop

appropriate and positive behaviourswhile using these techniques.

Summary

This paper has discussed three differ-ent categories of creative problem-solvingtechniques, namely paradigm preserving,paradigm stretching and paradigm break-ing. In order to encourage participants togenerate more creative ideas, the facilita-

tor can choose to utilize techniques thatuse unrelated stimuli, forced association andmore unusual modes of expression. How-ever, care must be taken with the planningand support of these techniques. Althoughparadigm-stretching and paradigm-breakingtechniques can enhance creative stimulationand reduce cognitive inertia, they can alsoincrease participant apprehension. Thus,facilitators must ensure that process congru-ence has been gained and that he or she

will support the group members and ensure

that positive behaviour is displayed. This can



15/17


be aided by the development of appropri-ate ground rules and training in creativeproblem-solving techniques.

Biographical note

Dr Elspeth McFadzean is an associate mem-ber of faculty at Henley Management College.Her research focuses on creative problemsolving, teambuilding, facilitation and groupsupport systems. She has published numer-ous papers and is the author of the bookTheCreativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for

Facilitating Problem Solving Sessions.

References

Aiken M, Sloan H, Paolillo J, Motiwalla L. 1997.The use of two electronic idea generationtechniques in strategy planning meetings.

Journal of Business Communication 34(4):370382.

Amabile TM. 1983a. The Social Psychology of

Creativity. Springer-Verlag: New York.Amabile TM. 1983b. The social psychology of

creativity: a componential conceptualization.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45: 357 376.

Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and

innovation in organizations.Research in Orga-nizational Behavior10: 123 167.

Anderson JV. 1992. Weirder than fiction: thereality and myths of creativity. Academy ofManagement Executive6(4): 4047.

Barker JA. 1992.Future Edge. William Morrow &

Co: New York.Bouchard TJ. 1972. A comparison of two group

brainstorming procedures. Journal of Applied

Psychology56: 418421.Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF. 1996. Team theoryof group productivity and its application todevelopment and testing of group supportsystems. CMI Working Paper Series WPS-96-1:University of Arizona.

Bruce V, Young A. 1998. In the Eye of theBeholder: The Science of Face Perception.Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Busse T, Mansfield R. 1980. Theories of thecreative process: a review and a perspective.

Journal of Creative Behavior14: 7787.Carnall C. 1995.Managing Change in Organiza-

tions(2nd edition). Prentice Hall: London.

Coetsee L. 1999. From resistance to commit-ment.Public Administration Quarterly 23(2):204222.

Cormier KA. 1999. Netstorming: Website devel-opment strategies. Strategic Finance 80(11):6467.

Couger JD. 1995. Creative Problem Solving andOpportunity Finding. Boyd & Fraser PublishingCo: Danvers, MA.

Couger JD, Flynn P, Hellyer D. 1994. Enhancingthe creativity of reengineering. InformationSystems Management.11(2): 2429.

De Bono E. 1991. I am Right You are Wrong.Penguin Books: London.

De Bono E. 1992. Serious Creativity: Using thePower of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas.Harper Collins: London.

Dennis AR, Heminger AR, Nunamaker JF, VogelDR. 1990. Bringing automated support to largegroups: the burr-brown experience. Informa-tion and Management18(3): 111121.

Dennis AR, Valacich JS. 1993. Computer brain-storms: more heads are better than one. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 531537.

Diehl M, Stroebe W. 1987. Productivity loss inbrainstorming groups: toward the solution ofa riddle. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology53(3): 497509.

Dyer WG. 1997. Organization development asI have experienced it.Organizational Develop-ment Journal15(2): 2734.

Edwards B. 1993. Drawing on the Right Side ofthe Brain: How to Unlock Your Hidden Artistic

Talent(new revised edition). Harper Collins:London.

Evans JR. 1993. Creativity in MS/OR: overcom-ing barriers to creativity. Interfaces 23(6):101106.

Fern EF. 1982. The use of focus groups foridea generation: the effects of group size,

acquaintanceship, and moderator on responsequantity and quality. Journal of MarketingResearch19(1): 1 13.

Finke RA. 1990. Creative Imagery: Discoveriesand Inventions in Visualization. Erlbaum:Hillsdale, NJ.

Finke RA. 1996. Imagery, creativity, and emergentstructure.Consciousness and Cognition 5(3):381393.

Ford CM. 1996. A theory of individual creativeaction in multiple social domains. Academy ofManagement Review21(4): 11121142.

Garfield M, Satzinger J, Taylor N, Dennis A 1997.

The creative road: the impact of the person,



16/17


process and feedback on idea generation.Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference

of the AIS, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Goodstein LD. 1997. Everything I really needto know: Im still learning. OrganizationDevelopment Journal15(2): 3542.

Hargadon A, Sutton RI. 2000. Building an innova-tion factory. Harvard Business Review 78(3):157166.

Hemsath D, Yerkes L. 1997. 301 Ways to HaveFun at Work. Barrett-Koehler: San Francisco.

Hicks MJ. 1991. Problem Solving in Businessand Management: Hard, Soft and Creative

Approaches. Chapman & Hall: London.Hill GW. 1982. Group versus individual perfor-

mance: are N+1 heads better than one? Psy-chological Bulletin91(2): 517539.

Jick TD. 1993. Managing Change: Cases andConcepts. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Johnson DM. 1955. The Psychology of ThoughtHarper & Row: New York.

Kruczek T. 1997. Making residents feel at homein the nursing home. Nursing Homes 46(2):3133.

Lamm H, Trommsdorff G. 1973. Group ver-sus individual performance on tasks requir-ing ideational proficiency (brainstorming): areview.European Journal of Social Psychology

3: 361387.LeBoeuf M. 1980. Creative Thinking. Piatkus:

London.Madsen DB, Finger JR. 1978. Comparison of a

written feedback procedure, group brainstorm-ing and individual brainstorming. Journal ofApplied Psychology63(1): 120123.

McDonald MJ. 2000. Managing rapid change:from theory to practice: an invited article.Southern Business Review25(2): 2833.

McFadzean ES. 1996. New ways of thinking: anevaluation of k-groupware and creative prob-

lem solving. Doctoral dissertation, Henley Man-agement College/Brunel University: Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.

McFadzean ES. 1998a. Enhancing creative think-ing within organizations. Management Deci-sion36(5): 309315.

McFadzean ES. 1998b.The Creativity Tool Box: APractical Guide for Facilitating Creative Prob-

lem Solving Sessions. TeamTalk Consulting Ltd:Milton Keynes.

McFadzean ES. 1998c. The creativity continuum:towards a classification of creative problemsolving techniques.Creativity and Innovation

Management7(3): 131139.

McFadzean ES. 1998d. The attention wheel:how to manage creative teams. WorkingPaper No. 9823, Henley Management College:

Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.McFadzean ES. 1999a. Creativity in MS/OR: choos-

ing the appropriate technique. Interfaces

29(5): 110122.McFadzean ES. 1999b. Encouraging creative

thinking.Leadership and Organization Devel-opment Journal20(7): 374388.

McFadzean ES, Somersall L, Coker A. 1998. Cre-ative problem solving using unrelated stimuli.

Journal of General Management24(2): 3650.McFadzean ES, Somersall L, Coker A. 1999. A

framework for facilitating group processes.Strategic Change8(7): 421431.

Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Theoret A. 1976.The structure of unstructured decisionprocesses. Administrative Science Quarterly

21(2): 246275.Mongeau PA, Morr MC. 1999. Reconsidering

brainstorming.Group Facilitation: A Researchand Applications Journal1(1): 1421.

Moore JS, Garg A. 1997. Participatory ergonomicsin a red meat packing plant part II: case stud-ies. American Industrial Hygiene Association

Journal58(7): 498508.Mumford M, Gustafson S. 1988. Creativity syn-

drome: integration application, and innova-tion.Psychological Bulletin103: 2743.

Nunamaker JF, Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Vogel DR,George JF. 1991. Electronic meeting systems tosupport group work. Communications of theACM34(7): 4061.

Osborn AF. 1957. Applied Imagination (revisededition). Scribner: New York.

Rodier MM. 2000. A quest for best practices. IIESolutions32(2): 3639.

Slater J, Dolven B. 2000. Picture this.Far EasternEconomic Review163(23): 65.

Stepanek M, Weber J. 1999. Using the net forbrainstorming: smart companies are exploitingcyberspace to spark innovation.Business Week3659: EB55-EB59.

Suler JR. 1980. Primary process thinking and cre-ativity.Psychological Bulletin88: 144 165.

Sutton RI, Hargadon A. 1996. Brainstorminggroups in context: effectiveness in a productdesign firm. Administrative Science Quarterly

41: 685 718.Taylor DW, Berry PC, Block CH. 1958. Does

group participation when using brainstormingfacilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly 3: 2347.



17/17


Umbrell C. 1999. Thinking outside the box.American Gas81(9): 1720.

VanGundy AB. 1988. Techniques of Structured

Problem Solving (2nd edition). Van NostrandReinhold: New York.

VanGundy AB. 1992.Idea Power: Techniques andResources to Unleash the Creativity in Your

Organisation. AMACOM: New York.

Von Oech R. 1983. A Whack on the Side of theHead. Thorsons: London.

Woodman R, Schoenfeldt R. 1990. An interac-

tionist model of creative behavior. Journal ofCreative Behavior24: 279 290.


Documents

Critical factors for enhancing creativitity - 2001.pdf