Thoughts on creativity in business - The Obvious, The Lateral, The Box and The Open

This article is part of my book "Pragmatic Management For Results". You can read a free sample here:

--- ooo ---

Most people in the upper layers of management have used a not insignificant amount of time in their work-life trying to get a grip on how to foster creativity - either directly or indirectly.

In the following some notes on this subject is presented as well as a few recommendations, which synthesize the discussions, and at least a partial viewpoint into what constitutes creativity in business.?

----------- ooo -----------

CONTENTS

1. Introductory
2. What is creativity
3. Problem solving vs. Creativity
4. The pragmatic approach by John Cleese
5. Elaboration on the Cleeseian Creativity
6. The open and the closed mode
7. Space
8. Time
9. Hard work
10. Humor
11. Lateral thinking
12. Academic Research into Creativity
13. Creativeness & Genius
14. Left and right brain
15. Motivation by Remuneration
16. Work as a playground
17. Brain function
18. Thinking inside the box
19. Flow State - In the Zone
20. The Obvious
21. Concrete Pragmatism
22. Harnessing Creativity

----------- ooo -----------

Introductory

We all want creativity in our businesses, but what is creativity and how do we encourage and nurture creativity in a company.

In this short article this is examined from various perspectives.

What is creativity

First of all what is creativity??

What we want with creativity in a business is to get great ideas, which can further our company's growth and profitability. This applies to new or improved products, over marketing and to financial planning - so more or less in all areas of the company.

The standard dictionary definition of creativity is given by the two following examples:

Cambridge Dictionary:

the ability to produce or use original and unusual ideas

American Dictionary:

the ability to produce original and unusual ideas, or to make something new or imaginative

Albeit these are good definitions they do not directly pertain to what we want for business. These seem to be grand ideas of geniuses, who invent new concepts and contraptions that the world has never seen.?

What we want in business is to make something that works well and better than other current used ideas. I.e. to by example use new principles from one area of production to another.

This goes more in line with one of the definitions from dictionary.com:

Creativity -?

the state or quality of being creative

Creative -

having the quality or power of creating

Creating -

to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes

So in effect, what this implicit dictionary definition points toward is something broader, i.e. to create something which is not the obvious and ordinary in a given situation.

Donald MacKinnon gives a good definition in his article:

?“THE IDENTIFICATION OF CREATIVITY“ in Journal of Applied Psychology Volume12, Issue1, January 1963, Pages 25-46

He writes :

“true creativeness fulfils at least three conditions. It involves a response that is novel or at least statistically infrequent. But novelty or originality of behavior, while a necessary aspect of creativity, is not sufficient. If a response is to be a part of the creative process, it must to some extent be adaptive to, or of, reality must serve to solve a problem, fit a situation, or accomplish some recognizable goal. And, thirdly, true creativity involves a sustaining of the original insight, an evaluation and elaboration of it, a developing of it to the full”

So not only does it broaden the novelty to statistically infrequent, it also applies the necessary condition that it should be applied in the real world to solve a problem.

Therefore it requires more than an idea, it requires an idea that can be realized in the real world, and it requires at least an indication of a feasible method of implementation.?

This ties very well into the benefits, which we would like in any business environment.

Problem solving vs. Creativity

We are all solving problems daily or almost daily, which is in itself empowering.

Building stuff, creating things - a new strategy, a new process, a new product - all things which were not there before.

We create - so now there is a solution or an entity, where there was nothing before.

However, that is not creativity per se.

To solve a problem we can go for the simple and straightforward solution, and there might be several solutions, each demanding different expended effort.

However creativity implies solutions which are not straightforward and easy to see, even if they are obvious, and which will bring the business forward to another level - or at least the problem area.

So this is novelty, characterized by being not straightforward, and this sets creativity apart from everyday problem solving, and also confines it as a particular successful subset of problem-solving.?

The following taxonomy of creativity in a broad sense in relation to problem-solving can set a frame of thought:

1. Solution - anything that fixes the problem at hand, i.e. the easiest way out.?
2. Good solution - one of more alternatives that get the job done in a smooth way and with less or optimal costs.?
3. Minor creativity - the things that are novel to the situation, but can be arrived at if you work hard, associate and think and use available methods and practises.
4. Medium creativity - things that Combine a known element in a new way or use something in a new setting.
5. Major creativity - the mind blowing solution. A whole new solution that redefines the problem and which you think will not work at first. Once implemented it seems obvious.

Naturally the situation and the problem define the necessity for the level of solution.?

Some issues just need fixing, for other issues it is important for future business that a good solution is found - and in some circumstances a wholesome solution of major creativity is needed, maybe to rescue the firms existence.?

We all feel empowered solving problems, even on the first level, and not many have been on level 4 or 5, even if they have used their whole work-life solving problems in businesses - and they are good at it.

As shall become obvious in the following there is an inherent problem in that creativity in business is sought for profit, but creativity is led by play and openness. Working for profit is deliberate, structured and rational, which brings it into what might be a direct opposition to creativity - or at least the two are in contrast with each other, which will be elaborated in the following.

The pragmatic approach by John Cleese

The above dictionary definition is much like what John Cleese talks around in the following excerpt from his remarkable 1991 lecture, where he offers a recipe for creativity.?

In the genius ways of Cleese, he delivers a recipe for creativity, which entails more hard work than easy play.?

Cleese outlines “the 5 factors that you can arrange to make your lives more creative”:

1. Space. You can’t become playful, and therefore creative, if you’re under your usual pressures.
2. Time It’s not enough to create space; you have to create your space for a specific period of time.
3. Time. Giving your mind as long as possible to come up with something original,” and learning to tolerate the discomfort of pondering time and indecision.
4. Confidence. Nothing will stop you being creative so effectively as the fear of making a mistake.
5. Humor. The main evolutionary significance of humor is that it gets us from the closed mode to the open mode quicker than anything else.

In the following these 5 rules will be elaborated and discussed further.

Elaboration on the Cleeseian Creativity

Cleese starts off by postulating :

“Creativity is not a talent. It is not a talent, it is a way of operating.”

So in his interpretation everybody can be creative, and it has nothing to do with special talents or the level of your IQ.

This is then elaborated in a description of what this process of creativity more precisely is and what elements are included.

He then goes on to cite Mackinnon (without further reference) who has found that:

“described the most creative (when in this mood) as being childlike. For they were able to play with ideas… to explore them… not for any immediate practical purpose but just for enjoyment. Play for its own sake.”

So what you need to foster is a play-like mood, where you are not result-oriented but simply play around for fun and no particular reason.

The open and the closed mode

John Cleese sets out to explain the two different modes you can be in when at work. The closed mode is characterized by execution, i.e. getting things done:

“[The closed mode] It's a mode in which we're very purposeful, and it's a mode in which we can get very stressed and even a bit manic, but not creative.”

Then he describes the open mode, which still pertains to work, however in a less direct way:

“By contrast, the open mode, is relaxed… expansive… less purposeful mode… in which we're probably more contemplative, more inclined to humor (which always accompanies a wider perspective) and, consequently, more playful.”

So we need to ensure that we are in an open mode to be creative, which is also something separate from the closed mode, and thus we are not executing and no routine work should be done.

However Cleese makes it clear that the closed mode is in itself good and has a purpose:

“But let me make one thing quite clear: we need to be in the open mode when we're pondering a problem but once we come up with a solution, we must then switch to the closed mode to implement it. Because once we've made a decision, we are efficient only if we go through with it decisively, undistracted by doubts about its correctness….. But here's the problem: we too often get stuck in the closed mode.”

So in order to actually get things done and move from the idea to the executing phase of a creation, we also need the closed mode - however we need to make time for the open mode as well, just as we both need production and development in a factory.

Under the pressures of delivering results, which are all too familiar to us, we tend to maintain tunnel vision at times when we really need to step back and contemplate the wider view.

Space

Cleese points out, that you can not become playful and therefore creative if you are under your usual pressures. This is so, because to cope with this pressure situation you have got to be in the closed mode.

So you have to create some space for yourself away from those demands. And that means sealing yourself off. I.e. you have to get away from the office or other places, where your normal closed mode operations take place. If you are in your normal work space, you will likely get someone dropping in to ask questions, you will wander off to get coffee and get into a discussion with someone on closed mode business.

So you need to make sure that this does not happen. You have to find a way to not get disturbed, either by yourself or others, so that you can immerse yourself in your creative endeavours.?

Time

Cleese says :

“Play is distinct from ordinary life, both as to locality and duration. This is its main characteristic: its secludedness, its limitedness. Play begins and then (at a certain moment) it is over. Otherwise, it's not play.”

So in order to play, you have to set a limt on the time you are going to spend, but also allow for a certain amount of time.?

In the Cleesian universe there are two different types of time, and therefore he has 2 rules, both named time.?

Amount of time and duration of suffering.

So you set a specific period of time to use for your creative play. That is the one form.

The suffering duration kind of time, is the time endured, where you will come up with nothing, but you need to keep at it. Centering and focusing your thoughts on the matter at hand, but without progress.?

However that does not really smell at lot like play, it seems to mimic more some kind of hard work. It is the crushed pieces of paper surrounding a writer in the old movies, reflecting all the attempts at a good idea. However Cleese also points out most of the time is used simply producing nothing at all.

Hard work

Cleese says that we all know, it's easier to do trivial things that are urgent than it is to do important things that are not urgent, like thinking.

And it's also easier to do little things we know we can do than to start on big things that we're not so sure about.

In the words of Cleese:

“It was that simple. My work was more creative than his simply because I was prepared to stick with the problem longer.”

So Cleese was not as bright as other members of Monty Python, however he was never satisfied with good enough, and therefore he put in more work.

From MacKinnon the same point is made:

“the most creative professionals always played with a problem for much longer before they tried to resolve it, because they were prepared to tolerate that slight discomfort and anxiety that we all experience when we haven't solved a problem.”

So there is a point to be made for sticking with a problem and really working with it deeply. Keeping at it and trying your luck from different angles.

Creativity sounds fun, light and playful. However that is mostly creativity represented by young naive women painting aquarelles of questionable worth.?

Real creativity is hard work, which is straining, mentally exhausting and at times tedious.?

Humor

Cleese states:

“the main evolutionary significance of humor is that it gets us from the closed mode to the open mode quicker than anything else.

….

humor is an essential part of spontaneity, an essential part of playfulness, an essential part of the creativity that we need to solve problems, no matter how ‘serious' they may be”

This requires a little reflection. Is it true that humor gets us from the closed mode to the open mode, and will it deliver that in the quickest way possible?

It seems to be at least true, that it is not very easy to be in the closed mode, when you are laughing - that is in itself a free state of the mind, and as such it must be an open mode. However it is a quick release, and it will deliver only a momentary spark of inspiration.?

It seems like the open mode should be in a timeframe, which is lasting somewhat longer.?

If there should be some truth to this, humor generally requires a setting with more than one person in order to work best. However, as is described by MacKinnon (below) real major creativity is an individualistic endeavour.?

So maybe this is just an occupational hazard of the line of work of Mr. Cleese, and as his work centers on humor so must creativity, in his world.?

Lateral thinking

Lateral thinking, invented by Edward de Bono, is a theory of how to think across and through different otherwise non-compliant dialectic disciplines.

Lateral thinking has been accepted into the dictionaries along the way from its origination in the 60’s and onwards, even though some critics think of the concept as psedo-science.

However lateral thinking is not meant to be a science, it is meant as an inspirational methodology for freeing the mind to a creative state.

As such lateral thinking has been conceptualized as the way to come up with creative solutions. I.e. it differs from by example critical thinking by not necessarily applying logic to a problem, but using different more associative and idea-generating methods.

Some of the dictionary definitions are:

Cambridge Dictionary:

a way of solving a problem by thinking about it in a different and original way and not using traditional or expected methods

Merriam-Webster:

a method for solving problems by making unusual or unexpected connections between ideas

Oxford Dictionary:

a way of solving a problem by using your imagination to find new ways of looking at it

Literally “lateral thinking” means thinking sideways i.e. not vertical or horizontal, but shifting across boundaries.

Edward de Bono describes this as something beyond dialectic reasoning:

"Purely horizontal thinking is known as daydreaming. Fantasy. Mysticism. The purely horizontal thinker has a thousand ideas but puts none of them into action. He or she sees the big picture and all its possibilities but has little interest in linear, step-by-step implementation.

Purely vertical thinking leads to compliance, conformity, and a false sense of knowledge. (False because it’s often just memorization in disguise. The student knows what to do without understanding why.) The purely vertical thinker is a nit-picker, a legalist, a tight-ass."

Learning to think laterally is, almost by definition, counterintuitive.

You have to think or connect totally different ideas than what your problem at hand suggests.?

As a path or method to creativity this seems almost an even harder task.

However, Edward de Bono developed some practical techniques for executing this way of thinking. In his paper:

“Information Processing and New Ideas — Lateral and Vertical Thinking”, Value Engineering, Volume I, Number 5, February 1969

Edward de Bono described four such techniques, which are described below:.

Awareness

Being aware of the way our brains process information will be a step towards establishing the lateral thinking process. It’s important to recognize our tendency to rely on established patterns of thinking. When working on a new problem we can then either leverage this tendency or break it.

Just being aware of what is the usual way of doing things will bring you in the direction of doing things differently.

Random stimulation

Often when we’re trying to think about a concrete problem, we focus by shutting out all outside stimuli.?

However, allowing unplanned, outside stimuli can break our customary thinking and make us less dependent on our normal frameworks. Paying attention to randomness can shift our thinking to new insights.

Alternatives

In the article de Bono argued that even if there is a straightforward and suitable solution to a problem, you can reach better and more creative solutions by setting the obvious aside and deliberately consider alternative approaches. The really hard task is to consider all alternatives, regardless of how ridiculous they might seem.?

This approach will facilitate that the problem is considered from all possible angles.

Alteration

This method is the deliberate alteration of possible solutions. This could be considering doing the opposite of an implied option, or reversing any dependencies or correlation between elements of the problem.?

This can include removing elements that are taken for granted to be part of the solution, decomposing large patterns into tiny elements or fragments, or translating a relationship to an analogy and then translating it back again just to see what changed. Arbitrarily altering elements of the problem can produce insights into the problem, which can propose a new solution.

Lateral thinking is a framework to help free your thought process from the normal academic way of thinking.?

However this is just one element of actually arriving at creative solutions.

Academic Research into Creativity

Empirical Research of IPAR

Dr. Donald MacKinnon, director of the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at UC Berkeley, has written several groundbreaking articles on creativity based on empirical investigations.

In his article? "Identification and Development of Creative Abilities", a paper presented to the Conference on Creativity and the Mentally Gifted sponsored by the Fresno County Schools, Fresno State College, Fresno, California, March 14, 1964, MacKinnon wrote comprehensively on the topic.

MacKinnon sets forth his definition, and then he stipulates 5 phases of the creative work, much like John Cleese. However his approach is more broad and is trying to capture not only the process but the formation of the ability to be creative in a concrete situation.

His 5 phases are:

1. Preparation - acquiring the necessary knowledge in the subject matter
2. Concentrated effort - this constitutes hard work on a problem
3. Recession - walking away from the problem, and to some degree renunciation
4. New insight - after a period of not working, a sudden inspiration and insight into the problem occurs, and then this can be formalized into a creative solution.
5. Evaluation and verification - checking the solution to see if it holds up to ‘falsification’

MacKinnon refers to Bertrand Russells description of his creative writing process for an example.

"In all creative work that I have done, what has come first is a problem, a puzzle involving discomfort. Then comes concentrated voluntary application entailing great effort. After this a period without conscious thought, and finally a solution bringing with it the complete plan of a book. This last stage is usually sudden, and seems to be the important moment for subsequent achievement."

(Quoted from Hutchinson, 1939).

MacKinnon bases his findings on a study of artists, writers, poets, mathematicians, engineers and architects. He (and his team) has followed a group of subjects, conducting interviews, applying tests and evaluating results over a longer period of time.

He then sets out another 5 facts about the highly creative, which is actually 7 categories, when categorized :

1. Intelligence

All subjects were highly intelligent from a testing point of view. However there was a tendency for creativity to be slightly negatively related to the raw intelligence score.

This signifies a certain level of intelligence is needed, but beyond that creativity does not respond to intelligence - however some problems where creative solutions are needed, will demand high intelligence in order to be creative, simply because the subject matter is highly complex or requires high intelligence to understand.

2. Originality.

The most creative persons are the ones with the most original suggested solutions. Something also suggested by other investigations into creativity. The more creative, the more ideas. Many ideas will not work, but one will.?

However some individuals in the study only produced a few solutions, however all of them were good solutions.?

So there is no single truth to the process leading to a creative solution.?

3. Independent

Highly creative people are independent in both thought and action. They go their own way. They set themselves apart from the group.

Creative individuals will likely have sharp edges and one-sided interests.

Brainstorming in a group is for this reason ineffective, as the truly creatively gifted will not perform and participate to their full capacity in such a collective effort.

4. Openness?

Highly creative people are open in their approach to problem solving, versus judging. So they think freely for solutions and options, and they perceive and gather information instead of judging or concluding.

MacKinnon synthesizes this into one word "curiosity". However there seems to be more to it, than simple curiosity. From Mackinnons findings and descriptions it seems like there needs to be an inquisitive curiosity with aimlessness in order to foster the right playfulness, which is almost oxymoronic.??

5. Intuition

Creative people are intuitive and use their intuition. MacKinnon distinguishes between sense-perception and intuitive-perception, where sense-perception is what is, while intuitive-perception is the symbolic and interpreted, in addition to patterns, which shows what can be.?

It is the intuitive-perception that creates creativity. It is not that a creative person does not rely on sense-perception, they do and they know and comprehend a lot of facts - however they search for meaning and the larger picture using the intuitive-perception.

6. Theoretical interests

The highly creative person is interested in theories and the abstract. Dealing with the abstract and theoretical is the realm of patterns, connection of seemingly unconnected elements, categorization of unlike elements according to their similarities and thus in effect the basis for creativity.

7. Result-oriented and confident

The highly creative person has great confidence in his own creative pursuits and is determined to see a solution through, and will pursue the solution by any means possible.

Summing up the different traits: intelligence, originality, independence, openness, intuition, abstract and result-oriented.

It seems to be highly dissimilar traits in one human being. Whereas intelligence and originality are broad characteristics, independence, openness and intuition are categories with some similarity, which are in sharp contrast to abstract thought and result-orientation.?

However it seems to go well with the Cleesian open and closed mode, which are also to some degree opposites.??

Creativeness & Genius

Professor Arthur C. Jensen has written what he names a “think-piece” rather than an article hovering around the nature of creativity, when discussing the difference between genius and giftedness.?

Jensen, A. R. (1996). “Giftedness and genius: Crucial differences”, In C. P. Benbow & D. J. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 393–411). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mr. Jensen begins by stating:

“my assignment here is to reflect on the much more complex difference between intellectual giftedness and genius, using the latter term in its original sense, as socially recognized, outstandingly creative achievement”

The creativity here mentioned is naturally of the extreme kind, as it separates the normally gifted from the genius. However, some of the points Mr. Jensen makes sheds some light on creativity in itself.

First, Jensen discusses why the model of “chance configuration theory of creativity” is not very helpful. I.e. the idea that creativity is itself a product of random permutation of circumstances, and that is why any invention will be made by some random person.?

Eventhough Jensen rejects the theory, he then purports that some element of randomness is in play anyway:

“The implausibility of randomness, however, in no way implies that creative thinking does not involve a great deal of "trial-and-error" mental manipulation, though it is not at all random. The products that emerge are then critically sifted in light of the creator's aim”

He then lists 3 elements, which will influence the degree of creativity in problem-solving:

“to be truly creative most often are those who are relatively rich in each of three sources of variance in creativity: (1) ideational fluency, or the capacity to tap a flow of relevant ideas, themes, or images, and to play with them, also known as "brainstorming"; (2) what Eysenck (1995) has termed the individuals' relevance horizon; that is, the range or variety of elements, ideas, and associations that seem relevant to the problem (creativity involves a wide relevance horizon); and (3) suspension of critical judgment.”

Jensen then goes on to give examples of these 3 traits. He mentions Darwin making “fool’s experiments”, where he tests the most ridiculous and improbable ideas. Linus Pauling also had a success ratio of 80/20, where most of the 80% bad ideas were really ludicrous.??

William Shockley, who had his name on about 100 patents, had about the same approach - he came up with many different ideas for solving a problem, and then he worked very very hard to make the ideas work - even the most ridiculous of them.?

Jensen then, by the examples of Beethoven and Picasso, gives the reverse approach. Producing something seemingly ordinary, then working hard at imposing wild and original ideas on the ordinary, and finally simplifying the work to its pure and essential form.?

Price’s law is introduced to show that creativity is linked to productivity - or really genius is linked to productivity, however also creativity by proxy. Price’s law states that in a field of study, if there are K contributors, then half of all work will be produced by the square root of K - i.e. if 100 articles are written by 25 authors, then 5 of these authors will have produced 50 articles. I.e. in this instance the most productive are 4 times more productive than the average of the other.

High productivity is a necessity for creativity, however it is not a sufficient condition.

Obsession with a topic is also discussed, where Jensen gives examples of great minds like Newton, Wagner and Toscanini, and how they lose time and place immersed in their work at inappropriate times and places.

Jensen then discusses mental energy. This is not correlated to intelligence, i.e. you can have high mental energy but be of average intelligence and you can have high intelligence and be of low mental energy. However, mental energy is a necessity for creativity.?

So in the end he gives his formula for genius, which is only partly relevant to creativity:

Genius = High Ability x High Productivity x High Creativity

However the 3 aspects are highly correlated, and reinforce each other.

Even though Jensen does explicitly deny, that there is a continuum from the retarded to the genius, maybe for practical purposes one could assert the following relationship, where creativity is a function of Ability or intellect, Productivity i.e. work on many different elements, Work i.e. the effort put in to solving one element and Inspiration which is the brains functioning in connecting inputs in a meaningful way over time.

Creativity = ?*Ability + ?*Productivity + ?*Work + ?*Inspiration

By example for a 2 variable view:

However it does not seem that anyone has done any empirical research into this, and also it would be a rather huge task, as many of the variables need thorough work to be well defined for analysis.

Left and right brain

Scientists at the University of Utah scanned the brains of more than 1,000 people and found that they did not tend to have a stronger left or right-sided brain.?

“An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging”,? Jared A Nielsen, Brandon A Zielinski, Michael A Ferguson, Janet E Lainhart, Jeffrey S Anderson, 2013/8/14, PloS one, Vol 8, p. e71275.

Creativity doesn’t reside in a single side or part of the brain but resides in different regions depending on what stage of the creative process you are at, and what you are actually doing.

If you are brainstorming for a new marketing slogan, for example, that might activate the Broca and Wernicke areas, responsible for language. But attempting to visually rotate a physical object in your mind’s eye, such as working out how to fit moving parts of a new product together, might activate the Dorsal attention/visuospatial networks.

So creativity needs domain-specific parts of the brain, and it seems that inspiration is also not secluded to the right brain half.

Motivation by Remuneration

Can you just pay a huge wage and bonus to get creative people, and then motivate them to be creative by monetary reward?

No, says some researchers.?

Mike Rugg-Gunn in a talk about the paper:

?“Defining Creativity and How to Develop a Creative Culture” (Mike Rugg-Gunn, Naijagraphitti blog, February 2015)

says that tasks need to be defined in “broad and substantive ways rather than just financial ones”.?

This is because finance is about control: “Control is anathema to the creative process. It’s also external motivation, whereas being creative is usually powered by intrinsic motivation.”

He writes:

?“Creative people value autonomy and professional achievement over power and status. Because creative people are passionate about their work the organization is secondary to their personal fulfilment.”

So you need to pay well, however real creativity is spurred by something more than financial gains.

As Rugg-Gunn puts it:

“What leaders choose to both recognize and reward is culturally formative and thus they should focus on fuelling intrinsic motivation (e.g. praise for a job well done; professional recognition or funding of professional development); external reward for those intrinsically motivated will be counter-productive.”

The subject of pay and performance is broad and has many contradictory findings. However in order to hire people, who have demonstrated the ability to be highly creative - there is no question that you need to pay well. On the other hand, to make these highly creative individuals perform well, once you have secured their services, you might not do a good job by just giving them financial incentives.

Work as a playground?

Jeremy Myerson, professor of design at the Royal College of Art in London and the author of several books on the 21st-century workspace, expresses the point that introducing novelty into the workplace can go badly wrong.?

Myerson, J. & Privett, I. (2014) ‘Life of Work: What office design can learn from the world around us', Black Dog Publishing, UK

The authors looked at various places for ideas and inspiration for office design; the academic library, theatre design, pop up events in the city and intensive team environments in air traffic control, emergency medical departments and the newsroom.?

However, one of the points is that simply allowing for space not designed for work, that is not a formula for success.

“The Google effect has promoted the idea that work is somehow a playground, and this can infantilize your staff”.?

While it may have worked for Google, the playground-design has a detrimental effect on workplace efficiency in companies with a different culture, with workers simply playing on the ping pong table instead of working.

So allowance for playground spaces in the office might help attract the right people to your company, however it will not make them creative - that is something not driven by table tennis and basketball hoops.?

In addition the confinement constraints on a problem fosters creativity, and the inspiration part of the creative process is only one part of it. This contradicts a no boundary, no rules, no deadline/goals kind of playground environment.

Brain function

Mark Beeman and John Kounios, have written an article dealing with insight as a reinterpretation of stimulus:

“The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight”, January 2014, Annual Review of Psychology 65(1):71-93

What Beeman and Kounios have proven was a marked shift in brain function that occurred just before people viewed a problem that they would eventually solve with insight. There was heightened activity in their brain’s anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).?

The ACC plays a role in salience and executive attention, and it’s the part that handles correction by dealing with conflicting signals in the brain.

When we are in a good mood, the ACC is more sensitive to odd thoughts and strange hunches. In other words, if an active ACC is the ready condition for insight, then a good mood is the ready condition for an active ACC.

The reverse is also true, you may say that being in a bad mood is like being in the Cleesian closed mode.

So it is important to be relaxed and in general positive spirits, in order to be creative and have new insight into a problem - at least when we are not gathering facts or dealing with the mechanics of the problem.?

Maybe that is also why insights seem to come when we are doing something other than working hard on the problem, by example while taking a break and doing something totally different.

Thinking inside the box

In an article from Rider University it is found that constraints foster creativity:

Catrinel Haught-Tromp, “The Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis: How Constraints Facilitate Creativity”, April 2016, Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11(1)

In this study the relationship between limits and creativity was investigated. Students were given eight nouns and asked to use them to write rhyming couplets, which are two lines of the same length rhyming the ending words of each.?

Another group was not given nouns but just told to write rhyming couplets. The work of both groups was then judged for creativity by an independent panel of experts.

Time and again, the participants in the group that started with the constraint of eight nouns outperformed the other group.

So this shows that you need the confinement of the box to get the creativity going.

Constraints force our brains to be more creative. Not because it wants to, but because it has to.

The same kind of experiment and with the same findings were done by Ravi Mehta & Meng Zhu, “Creating When You Have Less: The Impact of Resource Scarcity on Product Use Creativity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 42, Issue 5, February 2016, Pages 767–782

In another study it is shown that creativity is domain-specific:

“Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory”, John Baer, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 46, Iss. 1, pp. 16–29 ? 2012 by the Creative Education Foundation, Inc.?

It was demonstrated that creativity is domain-specific, and in addition creativity does not easily transfer between domains - ie. this also reinforces the inside the box reasoning - i.e. you need to be a domain-expert, and you may find inspiration outside the box, but the solution is inside.

As an extreme example suppose that you set yourself the task of improving the Schr?dinger equation, as you feel it is too complicated and not in adherence to the law of parsimony. The Schr?dinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a quantum-mechanical system.?

So in order to even comprehend the domain, you must at least have a fairly good understanding of advanced calculus, and you would also need more than a rudimentary knowledge of physics.?

Let's say that you then arrive at some new insight, which you think will be a basis for formulating a new more parsimonious expression of a quantum-mechanical system. Then you would need to be able to formulate that in some mathematical expression, most likely using differential calculus, and this requires not only deep insight and knowledge, but also an aptitude in general mathematics and abstract thought.?

So being very creative in a field such as marketing will not do you much good, and probably even being very creative in general engineering would also not be a good starting point. Both because the knowledge required to be creative is very different and because the nature of creative ideas in the different fields are very different.

Flow State - In the Zone

In psychology a flow state, also named being in the zone, is the mental state, in which a person performing some activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.?

In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation in one's sense of time.

In the zone things are easy, and being in the zone allows you to tap into your creativity, where new solutions just emerge..

This connects well with the theory of MacKinnon; as you have built your knowledge basis, you are working so fluently and with such ease, so that you do not become closed. You are working on closed problems with an open mind - because the work is second nature and internalized.

This also connects with the Cleesian theory of creativity, as an elaboration of a specific case of open and closed modes, and to some extent lateral thinking.

It is sometimes extended further into an idea of a 'natural state' where one is seeing clearly. Without thinking you see the solution in a clear light.

Sometimes you see by example mathematical solutions clearly without having to do the algebraic calculation - i.e. you simply see the solution to a complex equation straight away. This can not be pushed but only occurs when you have been deeply immersed in similar circumstances and solving other issues like the one in question. This happens in a lot of different areas of varying complexity.?

You have internalized the hard work aspect, and you are working and executing in a spine reaction autonomously, and thus simultaneously being able to have an open mind.

The Obvious

In a small book of about 50 pages, Robert Updegraff wrote in 1916 about the method of the obvious.

The book is easily read, however the following quote will serve well to describe the central point. Page 50-51, "Obvious Adams", Robert R. Updegraff, Harper & Brothers, 1916:

"I have given considerable thought to that very question, and I have decided that picking out the obvious thing presupposes analysis, and analysis presuppose thinking, and I guess Professor Zueblin is right when he says that thinking is the hardest work many people ever have to do, and they don't like to do any more of it than they can help. They look for a royal road through some short cut in the form of a clever scheme or stunt, which they call the obvious thing to do; but calling it doesn't make it so. They don't gather all the facts and then analyze them before deciding what really is the obvious thing, and thereby they overlook the first and most obvious of all business principles. Nearly always that is the difference between the small business man and the big, successful one.?"

In later prints Mr. Updegraff gives a 5 point guide to the obvious, illustrated by an article in the Rotarian 1981, vol. 138, no. 3, "Wake up… to the obvious".?

Here the 5 points are reprinted in full:

1.

Never mind how a thing has always been done, or how other people want to do it. What is the simplest possible way of doing it?

Strip off all the accumulated ideas, practices, methods, techniques, and traditions. If a seven-year-old boy was tackling the problem for the first time, uninhibited by the experience of generations, how would he be likely to proceed?

2.

Suppose the whole thing were to be completely reversed?

Nothing opens the mind wider to a new approach than to ask oneself this bold question. The fact that a thing has been done or made in a certain way for centuries is likely to mean that it is ripe for challenge. Perhaps reversing it in some respect will turn out to be utterly obvious.

Ernest G. Stout used this same reverse technique when he designed the revolutionary Convair Sea Dart, a jet-powered plane that can take off from the water. For nearly 40 years, designers had attempted – unsuccessfully – to create a boat with wings. The seaplane had been relegated to oblivion. Then Stout got an inspiration. Instead of designing a boat that could fly, he set out to create a plane that could float, a plane that became one of the world’s most remarkable aircraft.

3.

Can a vote be taken on it, or the public’s help actively enlisted?

Too many business decisions are made in the office instead of where life is going on. Very often some simple test, with a group of people or a cross-section of the public, will develop the obvious preference, or the obvious way of doing, making, or saying something. Since it is the public which makes or breaks us in everything we attempt to do, it seems utterly obvious to check our plans against a segment of the public, before going too far.

4.

What opportunity is being overlooked because no one has bothered to develop it?

In almost everything we use in our daily lives there is opportunity for improvement – often so completely obvious that it should shame us not to have seen it. Benjamin Franklin, bothered by the need for two pairs of spectacles, one for looking at things nearby, and another for seeing things at a distance, developed bifocal spectacles, which have been a boon to humanity. Nothing could be more obvious.

5.

What are the special needs of the situation?

Often the situation itself dictates its own specification, or presents some special – but overlooked – opportunity for improvement. The Hartford brothers with their cash-and-carry idea, Woolworth with his original limited-price store, the inventor of the ball-point pen that does away with the ink problem, were all creatively obvious.

The world is full of unexpressed, unsensed needs, waiting for the men and women who will bring obviousness to bear on the unsolved problems of everyday living. They will be richly rewarded!

Updegraff’s outline and focus on the obvious does to some degree correspond to Ockham's razor or the law of parsimony. This law sets forth that in problem-solving "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” or in other words "the simplest explanation is usually the best one”.?

So in search for creative solutions one should not look at complex ways of solving problems, but instead seek simplicity - that which is obvious.

Also almost all really great creative solutions will seem obvious once they are formulated and presented.?

In the simplicity lies the beauty.

Concrete Pragmatism?

To return to Cleese and the pragmatic aspects of creativity, a few simple observations will be given in the following.

A new way of furthering the objective, be it growth or profitability - can be a combination of known things in a new way or new to the situation, or simply known methods in a new industry or market. This will be the creativity often experienced in business, and which is in itself not a major creative break-through, however it will propel the business forward.

Most people will be able to recall a process where one's brain is circling a topic after concentrated work with some fragments of conscious thought, concepts and ideas - however with many unconscious, subconscious or fluctuating airy thoughts without articulation of an inner voice. However, the thought patterns are very clear, although not in language. This happens just before the epiphany of inspiration hits, which is then easy and straightforward to concretize and write down.?

This corresponds to the concept of being “in the Zone” discussed previously. Here you hit the zone, when the inner dialogue seases and you lose the voice, and thinking happens so fast or clear that it is without words.??

Walking, running or biking while you think, taps into something different as you are occupied. So occupying the brain with trivial tasks brings about the open state that will bring insights and inspiration.

An example is the portrait of creativity in advertising in the TV-series “Mad Men”, where new ideas are the cornerstone and the pivotal element in the business.

Here a huge reservoir of general knowledge, coupled with domain-specific insight into the customer and his products and the end-customers for these products lead to ideas - but only after hard work, thinking, living and at times unrestrained behavior.

Thinking and getting inspired happens in a lot of ways, as also seen in the 5 levels of creativity discussed above.?

So real groundbreaking creativity is just more of the same and getting truly inspired in an original way - with the prerequisite of actually having the brain power and the proclivity for real creativity.

Harnessing Creativity?

Creativity is not per se a team effort, and as MacKinnon found out collective effort is not the trademark of the truly creative. As is commonly known brainstorming does not seem to be very effective in producing creativity - which is also to some degree linked to the lack of real preparation, knowledge and hard work in most team sessions.?

Innovation is a team effort, however that is not creativity. Innovation is taking the creative idea and executing it in an implementation. That is not at all the same.

To attract real creative people to your company, there does not seem to be encouraging evidence for neither remuneration schemes or playground environments.

However both these elements might attract talent in general and also retain the talent you have.

What is more, you do not need to be a unicorn company to be successful. So major creativity is not needed consistently. You may run a good company with innovation on the lower levels of creativity from good problem-solving and over minor creativity.?

Having a home run in major creativity once in a while will be great for your company's progress, however most companies never see such groundbreaking innovation - and they run fine without it, creating value for the shareholders and generating profits.

However you still need to foster a creative environment, one where making mistakes is accepted and where wild ideas are welcome. And this is a real challenge.?

You need to let experience reign, so that you do not try every half-baked idea, spending your resources in vain on futile projects - however just letting the gray-haired decide will get you no creativity let alone innovation.?

So experience must be harnessed, but only experience with reflection. Experience without reflection is per definition the killer of innovation and indeed creativity.?

However, as postulated you can be successful without major creativity, and the way to harness creativity is to let experience (with reflection) and a framework for creativity, with allowance for input and openness, co-exist and interact.?

In summary you may be off to a good start by contemplating the following:

1. Make time and space for creativity in the company
2. Set specific frames around solutions, which are to be investigated for creative improvement
3. Pay well to attract creative people, but celebrate creativity in the company and find other such ways to reward with intrinsic value
4. Challenge the team and set high goals
5. Find the right mix between the reign or rein of experience and wild intuitive ideas
6. Make room for individuals in the organization and for individual pursuits?

So just thinking about creativity, talking about it and trying to find ways to encourage it in your company will help make your company's efforts move upwards on the creativity ladder - and thereby you will create Profit & Fun.