This chapter examines how you can become more creative. Different personalities express their creativity in different ways. Creativity can flower in structured as well as less-structured environments. All of us can become more creative, can do things differently, and can think in contrary ways. The key is in formulating problems and asking insightful questions, including the following:
First ask why not—before you ask how.
Challenge your commonsense assumptions.
Post the correct problem and ask questions in a straightforward manner.
Change continues to accelerate and affects society and the workplace in subtle and often unimaginable ways. We have evolved into a global community in which there is fierce competition and often unpredictable, even chaotic changes. At one time new products remained on the market for five to seven years so companies could get back their initial investment. Today compressed life cycles require bigger revenue hits because products are on the market for a shorter time. For example, a new prescription drug needs to turn a profit within five years of launch before it is replaced by a more effective remedy (1). Knowledge and intellectual capabilities are the critical competitive differences.
Our creative solutions to existing products, processes, and services will continue to be the only true competitive advantages. Arie de Geus, former planner at Royal Dutch/Shell, once observed, “The ability to learn faster than our competitors may be our only sustainable competitive weapon” (2).
Often, though, too little effort is given to encourage creativity and innovative thinking. Paul Reichmann, one of Canada’s top business executives, has said that liberal arts graduates are better prepared for business in today’s world than MBAs.
The liberal arts major has learned to think freely. Lee Iacocca once said, “MBAs know everything and understand nothing.” He was referring to the fact that MBAs have formulas for everything, but these are often useless in an age in which creativity and innovation are most needed (3). People often grow up in uncreative environments. They go to school where more effort is placed on repetition and formulas for problems than on approaching solutions in innovative ways. It becomes all too easy to believe that we are not creative.
ALWAYS ASK YOURSELF WHY-RATHER THAN HOW
Describing yourself as uncreative is perhaps the single greatest obstacle to innovation. One study found, for instance, that the main difference between creative and less creative people is that creative people think they are creative and less creative people think they are not (4). It can become a self- fulfilling prophecy that imposes imaginary limits on ourselves. Lauren Swanson, an associate professor of marketing, believes that all people are creative and that creativity can be nurtured through development of creative habits, including thinking contrary. Her advice is if their consensus is yes, then ask “Why not no?”
If the trend is to add more products, functions, or steps, then ask, “Why not fewer?” An example of a good “why” question versus “how-to” questions was the one posed by Peter Drucker when he asked executives, “If you weren’t already in this business, would you enter it today?” (5). Many managers realized the answer was no. But the reason it never occurred to them was that they had been too busy asking “How can we improve?” or other how-to questions. Always challenge the obvious and ask, “Is it really obvious or not?” See all problems as opportunities for creative solutions. Find more than one solution. That’s what this book is about—new ways of thinking and new approaches to problems. Chapters 3 and 4 in particular will explore more fully how to think differently, in opposite ways, and how to come up with novel solutions. Chapter 5 will show how to generate more creative solutions using a Darwinian approach, and chapter 8 will examine more fully how to ask good why questions. However creativity is more than finding new perspectives or thinking in unique ways. It involves having a particular mindset toward taking risk and making mistakes.
FINDING WELLSPRINGS OF CREATIVITY
Although it is true that certain people display a stronger tendency toward creativity, it is equally true that all people have creative potential. As William E. Coyne, Senior Vice President of Research and Development at 3M, says, “You can’t ask people to have unique visions and march in lockstep. Some people are very precise, detail-oriented people ....and others are fuzzy thinkers and visionaries ...”(6). He goes on to say that different kinds of innovation require different personalities. Some of their customers require very precise solutions. Other problems are broader and that is when they need a more open, visionary mind-set.
Coyne’s comments are backed up by Charles Prather’s research, which shows that most people are creative in one form or another. Rather it is more of a problem of finding the right environment for your creativity. He says some people feel more comfortable operating in a more structured work environment. It is what this book refers to as below the (creative) zone (see chapter 6). Prather says these people are more comfortable operating within the box. They like structure, rules, and organization and use their creative skills to make an existing system work better. Accounting, insurance, pharmacy or administration might tend to attract these kinds of people (7).
The outside the box types like to try out new ideas and concepts. These types of creative personalities produce more innovative and useful suggestions when they are under non-controlling supervision. Coyne says these types of people often require a tolerance for mistakes. They are the ones that produce more original and useful suggestions when their jobs are more complex (8). The message seems to be that creative people are everywhere; it’s a matter of matching personalities to jobs and supervisors. It is also a matter of reaching for your creative potential.
Michael Eisner, Disney’s former CEO, was once discussing how we can all find hidden depths and new wellsprings of creativity. He mentioned a retreat that top Disney management attended that was given by a husband-wife team who teach at the Harvard Medical School. Their talk focused on the need for people to connect with their emotional depths. The presenters said that being connected to these emotional depths was critical to releasing our most powerful and creative forces. The opposite of this is being disconnected and losing touch with fundamental aspects of who we are.
Eisner said he was especially struck by the point that fear of criticism and lack of acceptance are primary reasons why people so often censor their feelings and intuitions and shut down their depths. For him, it explained much about the difference between those who are truly creative and those who are somehow blocked, limited, or superficial. He believes that this has a very practical creative value. People who produce their best and most creative work do so when they are not afraid to take risks or to endure criticism, embarrassment, or even failure (9). Creativity, for Eisner, begins with risk taking. It means being able to trust your deepest intuitive feelings and instincts, which may mean even overriding contrary research, peer pressure, conventional wisdom, or intimidation.
Everyone is and can be more creative, but Eisner is right when he believes that creative people have a tendency to display particular attributes. Studies show these people not only have preferences for complexity and novelty, the same studies confirm what Disney might refer to as expressing irrational impulses. Most people bend to peer pressure or conventional wisdom. Doing things differently and being unafraid to take risks are hallmarks of the very creative (10).
ENCOURAGE PASSION AND RISK TAKING
A young researcher at 3M named Lew Leht demonstrates some of these personality characteristics. He was a key developer of 3M’s first surgical drapes. He remained convinced of their potential even when they failed initially in the marketplace. He remained convinced even after his supervisors told him that they were losing money on the product and wanted to get rid of it. Leht did agree to kill the project just as soon as the inventory was depleted.
What he neglected to tell the factory was that he had built up a substantial inventory! The product eventually became a solid performer for 3M and the first in a long line of health care products. To 3M’s credit, Lew Leht was not punished for his insubordination. In fact, he worked his way up through the ranks to eventually become chairman of the board. When Leht did become chairman, he did not try to make the labs bend to his will. Rather he believed it was better to ask forgiveness than permission (6).Chapter 8 gives specific suggestions on how to tolerate failure and risk taking so that innovative behavior can occur in individuals, groups, and organizations.
Creative personalities may vary, but one absolute essential is the need for insight. Doris Wallace notes that insight is important because it serves to reorganize thoughts by integrating previously unrelated elements into a new harmonious whole. Insight often occurs after earlier struggles and often entails an abrupt reorganization of previous thinking (11). Insight is thinking that reaches out beyond what is known and involves putting known elements together to form new ideas and products. It involves observation, experience, and knowledge that are put together in unique ways to produce novel insights.
It is often extremely difficult to be able to think in novel ways and make the leap from what is known to that which might be unknown. Our common sense tends to tell us that anything that is different from what we know is nonsense. Imagine or remember, if you are old enough, a market and a time when carbon paper was used instead of copiers. People used carbon paper to make copies at the same time as they typed. It would have challenged common sense to use a new machine to do this task. It would seem to be adding a new step. Imagine someone saying, “Now let me get this straight—if we buy this machine to make copies—something we already can do—and it’s in a different place than our typewriter? Hmm.”
Few would be able to see the future of this new product. It would not simply be used to make a copy of the original like carbon paper did but rather to make copies of copies of copies. This technology even evolved a whole new set of procedures and work practices that have changed the way we work. It became easier to share information. The process probably started out gradually and then, like the Internet is doing today, quickly restructured what was and was not possible.
However, the copiers would probably not have had the rapid impact it did without some marketing innovation. Instead of trying to sell to a hesitant market, Haloid (later renaming itself Xerox) bought the patent and decided to make its return from use fees. Every time someone made a copy, Xerox made money. It allowed people to take a chance on a machine with minimum cost and risk (12).
CHALLENGE YOUR COMMONSENSE ASSUMPTIONS
Becoming more creative begins by asking yourself, “Can I imagine any other way?” It begins by focusing yourself on one aspect of a problem and asking, “How can we (solve that) so it is not a problem?” Some have suggested that the most important part of this problem-solving process is to properly define the problem or more properly post the correct problem which then allows for solutions to be discovered (13). A good illustration of this point was provided by the Japanese company Canon when in the fall of 1970 it developed plain paper copier (PPC) technology. In 1979 Canon introduced a PPC that used completely original technology and did not violate any of Xerox’s over 600 patents, but by 1982 demand had leveled off for PPC products. Office saturation appeared to be complete.
This is the point that separated Canon from less innovative competitors. Instead of viewing their market as mature, they challenged this commonsense assumption. They began to think of their market not in terms of whether a firm has a copier, but rather in terms of individual offices. This was a new perspective, one that others had not visualized, and this new viewpoint convinced them that the market was much larger than originally envisioned. If small offices could use a copier, so could small businesses, and maybe even home use was possible. Even large firms with a PPC might be interested in a desk-side model.
Insight and creativity come from a willingness to challenge our assumptions or common sense about what is and why it is so. A good example of challenging the obvious comes from Rhonda Holley, a flight attendant at Southwest Airlines. She wrote to the company executives and suggested that they should remove the logo from the white plastic bags used for collecting trash at the end of the flight. Her argument was that nobody really cares about the logo on a trash bag. Management decided that this was a good idea. By using trash bags without logos, Southwest saved $300,000 per year (14). Creative people like Rhonda ask questions that frame problems so there are opportunities to innovate. These questions should be in straightforward language in order to encourage inventive solutions. Phrases like “develop a more efficient electric automobile” is straight and to the point. It is easy though to get lost in the details.
Consider the following situation facing General Motors when they wanted to create a new concept car. The initial definition of the problem they faced was to take a standard automobile then reduce the amount of energy it could carry on board equal to half a gallon of gasoline. Now add almost a ton of dead weight in the form of 26 lead-acid batteries, but don’t sacrifice air conditioning, power windows, CD player, rear-window defogger, or any other amenities. Oh, yes, and make it handle tight to the road like a sports coupe. How would you like to solve that problem? Well, that was what innovator Kenneth R. Baker, Vice President of Research and Development at General Motors, was facing.
His solution was to frame a simple, straightforward problem and not to buy into the old, excessively detailed definition of the problem. It was too specific, too confining. Creative insights often begin by challenging assumptions about the problem. He said you can’t just start with a standard automobile and remove the guts and plug in electric parts. Instead, they needed an entirely new automobile. They started challenging their assumptions about the real problem—not imaginary problems they needed to solve. They surveyed driving habits, which suggested that a car with a limited range would serve 90 percent of driving needs. A small two-seater with a range of only 70 to 90 miles between recharging’s could be trimmed by hundreds of pounds and still be a good second car for normal commuting, shopping, and driving kids to school (15).
With their definition of their problem simplified, it then came down to a simple question for efficiency. The concept car called the Impact is lightweight, has a highly aerodynamic shape on a 290-pound aluminum frame and accelerates from zero to 60 in less than nine seconds. It matches the performance of the BMW 3181 but with zero emissions.
Innovation began with reframing a problem in a more straightforward manner. Innovation solution often begins with phrases like the following:
“How to improve ...”
“How to eliminate ...”
“How to simplify ...”
“How do we improve customer service while still ...”
“How do we break down the walls separating ...”
The importance of problem formulation in successful creative problem solving cannot be overstated. An old adage says it all, “a problem well-defined is half- solved.’’ A client wanted to “minimize the percentage of scrap” in a cutting process. The client had an effective computer routine for generating and evaluating cutting- stock situations and then computing the percentage of scrap. It was a fairly straight forward application of implicit enumeration. However, new solutions arise by changing the definition to “minimizing the actual amount of scrap.” Immediately, the firm noticed that they were using different-sized stock to generate cutting patterns. A small percentage of scrap on a large piece of stock generated a large amount of scrap! Changing from control percentages to actual amount made the solution obvious (16).
IMPLEMENTING CREATIVITY AT XEROX
The reason for asking good questions is to be able to see the whole of a change rather than the pieces of it. That is what Xerox tried to do when they made a change. A transition team was charged with identifying the key characteristics that would be needed to help Xerox remain competitive, which they called Xerox 2000. The team, over a nine-month period, designed detailed changes that would be needed to be taken to meet Xerox’s 2000 strategy (17).
They began the process by first doing a reality check. The team recognized the danger of making assumptions and wanted to see what was actually being done rather than what was being said. They wanted to know “how do our people actually behave” rather than what they were supposed to do. Such a reality check is often disturbing, but almost always useful.
Xerox’s management was not only interested in where most of the organization was headed but also where the stragglers were going. They wanted to discover divergent behavior, radicalism, and innovation, as well as their normal culture. When they did find radicalism, they hired anthropologists to take a closer look so they could understand the big picture rather than simply accepting what people said was happening. This is one of the key reasons for hiring outsiders or other consultants. Once the anthropologists were inside these pockets of innovation, they were then withdrawn and were asked to summarize their insights.
Analysis of six such experiments around the world brought some interesting insights. They learned not only about the organization as a whole, but also about why there were isolated pockets of innovation rather than widespread areas. Xerox discovered what they called the double blind, a set of beliefs that were self-canceling and self-sealing (17). For instance, they found out, to no one’s surprise, that Xerox personnel deeply believe in teamwork (for example, Team Xerox) as a means of achieving greater competitiveness. Although teamwork was highly valued, they also discovered that the culture had a strong hero-worshiping mentality, which gave special status to the superstar. Two such viewpoints are not only interrelated but also are self-canceling because hero worship runs counter to a team-based culture.
Xerox knew they would need to be more than simply a copier company if they hoped to survive in the twenty-first century. They felt changes were needed in order for them to remain competitive. As long as employees thought of themselves as working for a copier company, things would remain the same. They would keep coming up with new technology to make working with documents easier and more efficient or slowly grow extinct. They knew that making a small change in who you are would change everything.
REDEFINING YOURSELF ENCOURAGES INNOVATION
Xerox changed the definition of who they were (see Exercise #2 in Chapter 13 for how to go about this process) about halfway through their change process. Rather than thinking of themselves as a document-processing company, they began to see themselves as simply a document company. At first this might seem like a simple change. They only eliminated one word, but the people on the team began to change their attitudes and perspectives. The new focus at Xerox was to begin to associate themselves more with documents than with processing those documents. With this new perspective came a new mission. They would attempt to focus their people more on creating value by enabling documents to be an integrating force in and across corporations (17).
Previously, Xerox had concentrated on creating new processing technologies for eliminating waste and making it easier to work with documents. Now, they had a new innovative concept and began to concentrate on live time as well as eliminating dead time. Before they focused on eliminating waste, now they were innovating by thinking of creating value.
They began to ask fundamental questions about what they were doing and, most importantly, from a creativity standpoint, why. The team eventually came up with 17 interrelated and adaptive characteristics they would use to define what they wanted to achieve. The criteria they chose were not particularly unique and included tenants like reduced time to market and simplifying the organization. This analysis caused them to reorganize divisions based on distinct decision-makers who would buy a group of products. The team spent a great deal of time clarifying each new function that would exist at each level of the company and what type of people they wanted to fill those positions.
Additional ways of empowering your creative mind through problem formulation and redefining the definition of the problem are described in Exercise #2 (Management-by-the-Fundamental Question) in chapter 13.
The world will always need creative people, but it seems especially critical in today’s ever-changing economic climate. All too often we doom ourselves by believing we are not creative. Nothing could be further from the truth. To reach your creative potential takes both the right environment and a questioning and open approach to new information.
The entire creative process begins by asking fundamental, simple questions that challenge our common sense. The more creative of us have a lot more respect for nonsense. We also have a willingness to take risk. Even though some people may be more predisposed to take risk, challenge convention and to ask clear, simple questions that does not limit any of us from developing more creative minds. Ultimately, creativity asks us to be open to new information, new perspectives, and making new connections. We now know that the brain continues to rewire itself and that it is not simply hardware and software. Knowledge for us, unlike the computer, really does change the circuits. New knowledge and new perspectives help us learn to think creatively and differently. It does require us to give up our status quo attitude and to put ourselves in a state of flux through which we can absorb and grow new connections. Chapter 2 more fully describes this zone of creativity and helps you to identify how much chaos or stability will be needed for you and your organization.
1. Krinsky, Robert. 1997. “When worlds collide: the uneasy fusion of strategy and innovation.” Strategy and Leadership 25, no. 4 (July-August): 38-39.
2. Harari, Oren. 1996. Mind Matters. Management Review 85, no. 1 (January): 49.
3.Zelinski, Ernest J. 1989. Creativity training for business. Canadian Manager/ Manager Canadian (summer): 24.
4. Swanson, Lauren. 1997. A Chinese view of birthing and growing ideas. Marketing News 31, no. 7 (31 March): 17.
5. Sherman, Stratford. 1993. Are you as good as the best in the world? Fortune, 13 December (reprint).
6., Coyne, William E. 1996. Building a tradition of innovation. UK Innovation Lecture, 5 May, 5-9.
7. Capowski, Genevieve. 1994. What flavor is in your ice cream cone? Management Review 83, no. 12 (December): 7.
8. Tabak, Filiz. 1997. Employee creative performance: What makes it happen? Academy of Management Executive 11, no. 1: 120.
9. Eisner, Michael. 1996. Speech to Chicago Executives Club. Chicago, 111., 19 April, 8.
10. Coates, Joseph F., and Jennifer Jarrott. 1994. Workplace creativity. Employee Relations Today 21, no. 1 (spring): 19
11. Wallace, Doris B. 1991. The genesis and micro genesis of sudden insight in the creation of literature. Creativity Research Journal 4, no. 1: 43, 48.
12. Brown, John Seely, n.d. Seeing differently: Insights on innovation. Pamphlet, p. XI.
13. Nonoka, Ikujiro, and Martin Kenney. 1995. Towards a new theory of innovation management. IEEE Engineering Management Review 23, no. 2: 2.
14. Freiberg, Kevin, and Jackie Freiberg. 1996. Nuts! Southwest Airlines’ crazy recipe for business and personal success. Austin, Tex.: Bard Press.
15. 1997 Discovery Awards. 1997. Discover, July, 65.
16. Volkema, Roger J. 1995. Creativity in MS/OR: Managing the process of formulating the problem. Interfaces 25 (May-June): 81
17. Brown, John Seely, and Elise Walton. 1993. Reenacting the corporation. Planning Review (September/October): 5-8.