Creativity isn’t considered to be a central topic of concern for science. Scholars, for example sociologists and anthropologists, have tried to put a great deal of time, effort and attention into creativity. However, unfortunately they have had to conduct their research lacking huge grants. This could imply that there isn’t a large mass of research surrounding creativity due to the scarce resources available.
Sawyer (2012) expresses the view that various individuals become nervous about providing strict definitions of creativity. He argues that even if it is agreed that creativity can be defined, people might doubt that creativity can be measured. Ultimately, defining creativity could be considered as one of the most difficult tasks facing the social sciences (Sawyer, 2012). Although, in saying this, within Keith Sawyer’s book, ‘Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation’ (2012), he defines creativity in two ways; the ‘Individualist’ definition, and the ‘Sociocultural’ definition.
The Individualist definition can be defined as “Creativity is a new mental combination that is expressed in the world” (Sawyer, 2012). It could be considered that this definition is based around an old theory in psychology, named associationism. Alder Bian (1818-1903) argued that “new combinations grow out of elements already in the possession of the mind”, suggesting that the novel ideas that people come up with probably aren’t completely new to the world, however as long as they’re new to the person, this satisfies that individualist definition. Diving deeper into the definition, by creativity being “new”, Sawyer (2012) states that repeating previously mastered concepts isn’t being creative, the thought or action must be original. Additionally, by being “expressed in the world”, this implies that researchers can’t understand what they can’t see visually, This is why the scientific definition has to exclude ideas that a person doesn’t express (Sawyer, 2012).
The second definition is the Sociocultural definition, and this can be defined as “Creativity is the generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropriate, useful or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable group” (Sawyer, 2012). To satisfy this definition, the novelty of an idea isn’t sufficient, Sawyer (2012) argues that the creation must be appropriate and recognised as socially valuable in some way to the community. This definition is extremely similar to the definition of innovation, which Amabile (1988) defines as “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organisation”.
What the Literature says
Creativity enables sustainable development
Being sustainable nowadays is admired within businesses. Consumers often favour businesses if they adopt sustainable practises. To support this, a study conducted by SmartestEnergy reveals that ⅘ people describe themselves as likely to choose a brand with a positive approach to sustainability (SmartestEnergy). Additionally, more formal figures also recognise that being sustainable is important; The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development “explicitly calls for businesses to apply their creativity to solve our current sustainable development challenges (UNESCO, 2013). Organisations often need to be creative in order to think of new ideas of how to be more ethically sustainable. It could be argued that creativity can result in a business gaining more knowledge and experience within the business world, which has positive impacts on the market and the organisation’s overall performance (Im and Workman Jr, 2004). The process of creativity can lead to the growth of new processes, products, services and technologies (Gundry et al, 2014). This demonstrates how creativity enables organisations to adopt sustainable practises through an expanded use of creative problem solving for green innovation (Grundy et al, 2014). Lozano (2014) argues that if creativity is merged with business learning and varied knowledge, this may result in organisations abandoning out-dated systems and processes that have previously led to environmental degradation, and further focusing on the usage and promotion of more ethically sustainable models that foster sustainability.
Creativity as a hidden development factor
In a report titled, ‘Creativity As The Hidden Development Factor For Organisations and Employees’ Dimitrios Bousinakis and George Halkos discuss many theorists’ view on creativity being a successful element of an organisation’s structure. Dimitrios and Halkos (2021) imply that in order for organisations to solve issues, they require solutions, different to what has been used in the past. This relates to Sawyer’s (2012) individualist definition of creativity. They argue that an important element for organisational growth is for individuals to implement their knowledge and abilities to create new developments, also argued to be creativity.
Creativity is said to have a notable impact on the well-being of individuals within an organisation. If an employee feels as if they have contributed to the success of the company, it not only generates optimism and positivity within the workplace, it also helps to favour personal growth for the employee (Rassulzada and Dackert, 2009). On a larger scale, it could be suggested that creativity can improve the overall systematic operations and efficiency of a business. This ultimately could result in leading to market success (Mostafa and El-Masry, 2008). One may argue that the general aim for an organisation is to be ahead of competitors and be the market leader. It could be considered that creativity can be utilised to adapt already existing products and services that an organisation offers. By keeping up with customers’ wants and consumer trends, this would put an organisation ahead of competition (Puccio and Cabra, 2010).
Sawyer (2012) also identifies numerous benefits for an organisation, and also the individual, of being creative. He argues that creativity pressurises employees to come out of their comfort zone and think outside of the box. Being creative can help to identify an individuals ‘unique creative talents’. Failing to recognise creative abilities will put a business at a disadvantage as they are not exploiting all of their resources (Sawyer, 2012). In saying this, managers need to learn how to foster creativity. If leaders understand how to respond to creativity, they will be able to approach challenges more confidently. Bennis and Biederman (1997) stated that ‘researchers have discovered that creativity is an essential skill for effective leadership’. If leaders are creative, they will be more self-assured in motivating their teams to act the same way (Sawyer, 2012).
The Dark Side of Creativity
In a report conducted by the Harvard Business Review, they discuss the negative effects that creativity can convey. They argued that it has been discovered that various amounts of counterproductive qualities often are often related with creativity. Novel thinking could be said to have a ‘maladaptive side’ because creativity demands the inability to ignore immaterial thoughts and inappropriate ideas (Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015). The review also explains how creativity has been ‘associated with dishonesty’ for the reason that it enables people to ‘creativity distort reality’ (Tomas Charmarro-Premuzic, 2015) suggesting that if people claim their solution is ‘creative’, it can go against what is seen as acceptable within society.
Developing creativity can sometimes result in negative consequences. Individuals may use creativity as a short-cut, or to discover new ways to take advantage of their company whilst being undetected. For example, stealing or adopting poor work ethics. Ermann and Lundman (1987) explain how businesses occasionally search for creative ways of achieving negative solutions. Examples of this could include disregarding company rules and regulations or forcing competitors to declare trade secrets.
Amabile (1989) explains how the biggest challenge for society and businesses as a whole is to decrease the amount of strong factors that promote the negative aspects of creativity, and to intensely highlight the positive aspects instead. Judging whether creativity is considered as ‘dark’ is quite a subjective and relative topic. Not everyone will have the same opinion as to what is acceptable or not acceptable. What is seen as positive creativity to some, may be seen as negative to others. Keith James, Karla Clark and Russell Cropanzano (1999) argue that when labelling creativity as either good or bad, it is dependent on the opinions of the individual analysing it.
2022-1-22-1642891509