Creative Methodologies for Business

Sir Ken Robinson (2006) mentioned that the current system of mass education have killed creativity in children. He commented on how mass education suppressed the natural capabilities of creativity and the importance of cultivating these capabilities. (Huffington post, 2012)

When children use their imagination and creativity to create something that does not conform to conventional logic, they are taught that it is wrong. For example, a child that paints a purple sun would be taught that the Sun actually orange or yellow but not purple. Over time, the child would stop using their imaginations as they are afraid to be wrong. This in born creativity skills would be suppressed due to the fear of being "wrong" and that is how the education system kills creativity in children.

Most people are in fact born creative but these inborn creative thinking skills are just suppressed as they are conditioned since young to do so. However, creative thinking is a skill that can be learnt and enhanced through creativity techniques and tools.

Creativity Techniques: Group and Individual context

Creativity techniques are tools that encourage creative actions through idea generation, problem solving and by thinking out of the box (Diehl & Tassoul, N.D) It is important to understand how creative tools can be used individually or collectively as a group and understand how they can be best used.

Research on creativity was initially focused on the personality traits of creative people (Helson, 1996). It was found that creative individuals tend to be independent and are introverted based on studies done by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist. Research suggests that individuals are more creative when they left in privacy and are free from disruptions (Cain, 2012). This could be because introverts are more comfortable working individually and this leads to generation of creative ideas when they are alone. As creative ideas tend to be unorthodox (Moscovici, 1976), most creative individuals are often reluctant to express these ideas due to fear of negative criticism from a group.

A group discussion can be detrimental to creativity as it encourages social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993) and conformity. Having a group discussion is not the best approach to generating new ideas. Research shows that in a group discussion, members tend to fix the ideas of members unconsciously and it leads to providing suggestions that mimic others. (Psychology Today, 2012) To counter the problem of conformity, a group should have more diversity of different cultures. Also, research showed that when members are explicitly told to be more imaginative, group members tend to think more creatively and generate creative ideas better.

Domination of a group member and social loafing could occur during group discussions too. When there is an overly dominant member in a group, it can cause the discussion to be one sided as other members are afraid to voice out their opinions and interrupt. This leads to conformity of a group due to fear. To have an effective group discussion, it is important that there is a leader in the group to ensure that the situation is in control and that members do not dominate the discussion or free ride on the team. An effective group leader should also encourage individuals to voice out their opinions to reduce conformity in a group.

The best approach to creativity is to strike a balance between individual and group creativity. People work together better through online collaboration as compared to discussions in person (Camenisch, 2012). When group members participate in online discussions while in solitude, they tend to be more productive and creative as they are in the comfort of their own space while being connected to others at the same time. This allows an effective group discussion between group members while allowing members to have their privacy at the same time.

Six Thinking Hats

Created by Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats is a parallel thinking technique that can be used as individually and collectively as a group. It is used to view decisions from a number of different roles and perspectives. This helps people to get a well-rounded perspective of a particular situation or problem by proving a framework to focus and broaden thinking. When used in meetings, it helps to block confrontations that would normally surface when people with different thinking styles are discussing the same problem. Each "Thinking Hat" has a different style of thinking and by mentally wearing the various "hats", it forces people to redirect their thoughts of the situation.

The six hats include the White hat, which represents existing information and data available. This is where past trends and historical data of a company are analysed. The red hat represents intuition and emotions and when wearing this hat, it is important to think from an emotional perspective and imagine how others would feel about the decision made. The black hat represents the negative points of a particular decision and focuses on the weak points of a plan. This allows for the elimination of the problems and preparation of a contingency plan. The yellow hat focuses on the positive perspective. It is an optimistic viewpoint of a plan and looks at the benefits and value of a particular decision. The green hat represents creativity and seeks for creative solutions to a challenge. The Blue hat focuses on process control and it is worn when there are difficulties due to lack of ideas or when other "hats" are needed.

When facing a particular problem, each person would use the same "hat" at the same time. This is also known as focused parallel thinking and it helps solve unresolved debates and discussions in a short period of time.

Six Thinking Hats: Boeing Case Study

In the late 1990s, Boeing, used Six Thinking Hats to solve employee challenges which needed to be resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible.(de Bono for Business, N.D) The challenge involved employees that just returned from disability leave required light duty jobs due to physical restrictions. However, the union had strict guidelines towards the entitlement of these light duty jobs. The union guidelines stated that the job entitlement was based on seniority and the majority of the employees returning from disability leave did not have the necessary seniority rights to acquire the positions.

A Joint Committee consisting of both the union and the management was called upon to address the situation. The committee came up with 24 plausible solutions however; representatives from the management and the union would tend to favour suggestions that came from their team. This lead to long debates over the best solution