Tag Archives: Creative thinking

Developing Creative Leadership & Strategy

Posted on by
1

Where a creative leader often excels (when compared to a traditional, non-creative leader) is developing an effective, sometimes unique, often innovative strategy in achieving a desired objective.  In addition, a creative leader will often have a vision that is either clearer or more expansive than traditional leaders.

A perfect example of this compares the late Steve Jobs of Apple with the leader of Sony during the same time.  Sony was dominant player in the personal CD player and MP3 player market such that it could have easily have leveraged its strong position into new, more compelling consumer products.  Instead, Sony pursued a traditional strategy of incremental improvements and product line extensions, maximizing current revenues but missing the opportunity to disrupt and dominant the consumer music market.

In contrast, Steve Jobs had a vision much more expansive than mere revenue generation (though he did manage to generate tractor-trailer loads of cash) – revolutionizing consumer music hardware, software, and distribution, all at the same time.  His strategy was revolutionary (not incremental) and involved the integration of music hardware, software, and distribution into one seamless, consumer-friendly system.  The iPod, iTunes & Apple store represent the brilliant solution that executed the brilliant strategy that Steve Jobs developed.

Strategy versus Solution

Generally speaking, “strategy” is the culmination of the first three steps – diagnostic, visionary, and strategic thinking and results in  the asking of the right question.  From the example above, Sony’s leader implicitly asked, “how might we extend our product line and competencies to maximum revenue and market share?”  In contrast, Steve Jobs might have asked, “how might we revolutionize the music industry by integrating consumer music hardware, software, and distribution paired with elegant design?” A revolutionary strategic question gets revolutionary solutions.  Consistently pursue the wrong question and your organization is toast even before it starts.

The “solution” is the culmination of next four steps of the creativity cycle – ideational, evaluative, contextual, and tactical thinking – and it is the answer that is implemented in response to the strategic question.

Generally speaking, the impact of a solution is largely determined by the importance of the strategic question.  For instance, what if Edison had asked, “how might I improve gas lamps” instead of “how might create the first commercially feasible electric light source?”  Edison strategy was revolutionary, and so was the result.  Thus, what really separates creative leaders from most other leaders is that creative leaders ask questions that tend to be revolutionary (re-ordering and disrupting the status quo) rather than incremental (optimizing the status quo).

Traditional Leaders versus Creative Leaders

Strategic Leadership

Like traditional leaders (most CEOs), creative leaders must develop and execution good solutions to implement their strategies effectively.  However, creative leaders tend to pursue revolutionary strategies (that reinvent the system) rather than the incremental strategies (that improve the existing system). In contrast, there are near countless CEOs that follow traditional business wisdom (incremental changes), implementing effective solutions, but never generate an innovative or disruptive strategy in their lives.  It is a sad truth that organizations that are led by traditional leaders are often (though not always) doomed to “middle of the pack” status.

Future creative leaders have developed the rare ability to generate an innovative strategy, but may need to work on their leadership and execution skills before they can develop into a creative leader.  Future creative leaders can develop into creative leaders if they are mentored and gain the necessary experiences and leadership skills that enable the effective implementation of a solution.  Unfortunately, however, many future creative leaders fail to blossom into creative leaders because they often lack one or more essential skills – like self-discipline, social and political skills, or judgment that blends both vision and practicality.

Finally, there are some leaders who neither develop good strategies nor execute solutions well.  These individuals must either improve quickly or find a new job, preferably not as a leader.

Developing into a Creative Leader

Creative leaders will not always outperform traditional leaders from the start, though over time creative leaders tend to prevail.   This is because innovative strategies are harder to implement, and thus, require a mature leader who has honed his leadership skills over many years.   For example, early on, Microsoft lead by a more traditional Bill Gates (who effectively executed solutions and strategies that were hardly innovative) ruthlessly crushed the more innovative Apple and Steve Jobs.  However, after Steve Jobs developed over the years (i.e, grew into a true creative leader), Apple crushed Microsoft (and virtually every other company) over the past 15 years or so.

There are two paths towards becoming a creative leader.  The first path involves first mastering leadership, but then learning to develop increasing daring and innovative strategies.  For instance, a strong traditional leader (like a Mitt Romney) could work with his team to ask the right questions, and work towards becoming a creative leader.

However, the sad truth is that most traditional leaders tend to remain “stuck” in their mental paradigms.  Few traditional leaders develop out of more traditional, white-bread backgrounds.  This is because traditional leaders have a strong propensity for working within existing structures (hence their effectiveness as a leader).  If measured on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovative (KAI) scale, traditional leaders would have a strong preference for adaption (working within existing structures).  In contrast, creative leaders tend to work outside the status quo (innovation).

Just because most traditional leaders don’t make the leap to become a creative leader, it does not mean that can’t.  They just need some training in creative problem solving (search CPSI on google) that will help launch them into a new life a creative leader.  In addition, a traditional leader might pair with a more innovative (as measured on KAI) individual to find success as a creative leader.

Most creative leaders develop out the second path – starting as a future creative leader and eventually becoming creative leaders.  A common characteristic of great creative leaders is that they do not conform to conventions and thus take much longer to mature and develop than traditional leaders.  Eccentricity has it down-sides and takes creative leaders a long time to jettison (or sufficiently reduce) their socially unproductive behaviors while still keeping their visions and strategies that are laced with creative gold.  In addition, future creative leaders often need to develop self-discipline organizational skills before they become develop truly effective creative leadership.

Besides learning to “hold back” their non-conformity a few notches, most future creative leaders need to spend years polishing their traditional leadership skills, especially diagnostic, evaluative, contextual, and tactical thinking.  These are the skills (often possessed in abundance by traditional leaders) that are necessary to get solutions implemented.  Future creative leaders tend to be possess inherent or latent strengths in regards to visionary, strategic, and ideational thinking (often lacked by traditional leaders) – the skills necessary to formulate brilliant strategies.

Overtime, future creative leaders can overcome their personal and leadership weaknesses and develop into great creative leaders.  As a warning, however, failure to overcome these weaknesses will lead to perpetual ineffectiveness.  In the recent political campaign, case in point is Newt Gingrich.  While Newt was arguably a brilliant policy maker and a man with some potential to innovate and disrupt society (hopefully in a positive way), his personal baggage – a lack of self-discipline, grandiosity, arrogance, inability to manage, and personal character flaws – led his campaign to crash and burn when faced with a more disciplined traditional leader (Mitt Romney).  However, if a future creative leader will persist in developing, gaining experience, and polishing his strengths and overcoming weaknesses, watch out!

Developing Creative Leaders through Creative Problem-Solving & Facilitation Training

Posted on by
Reply

Effectiveness as a leader is dependent on a combination of personal attributes, skills, experience, and leadership style.  Training in the creative-problem solving (“CPS”) method and facilitation process (referred to as “creative training”) can help leaders improve their leadership and creative thinking skills, but also gives leaders specific tools (“creativity tools”) to help them produce better decisions and outcomes.  In addition, creativity training helps leaders develop a leadership style that supports creativity and the accomplishment of organizational goals.  Indeed, “creativity itself has been elevated to a leadership style” (IBM, 2010, p. 26) (CEO Study).  Creativity impacts nearly every aspect of leadership:

 Creative leaders share a set of common characteristics that help them innovatively lead   their organizations.  They challenge every element of the business model to realize untapped opportunities and improve operational efficiency.  Leaders grow their businesses through the exploration, selection and execution of diverse, even unconventional, ideas about the potential of new markets.  They leverage new    communication styles to motivate talent and reinvent relationships, both internally and across the supply chain, to create collaborative productivity.  They focus on the bigger  picture — the global marketplace — and how to lithely optimize the collective skills of   their organizations. (IBM, 2010, p. 25) (GHRO Study)

Creative leadership has been defined as “deliberately engaging one’s imagination to define and guide a group toward a novel goal—a direction that is new for the group” (Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2011, p. 40).  Thus, the difference between leadership that is “plain vanilla” and creative leadership is that creative leadership is needed where the objective (or the path towards achieving the objective) involves some degree of novelty.

Given the importance of creativity in organizational leadership, it is somewhat puzzling why creativity is not a more common attribute in leaders.  Part of this deficiency may result from the inherent difficult in “measuring” creativity.  Even within the creativity field there is active debate about if and how creativity can be measured (this debate has not stopped the development of numerous so-called “creativity” tests) (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).  Furthermore, creativity is seemingly intertwined with the myths of the lone investor (like Edison or Tesla), eccentric scientist (Albert Einstein), renaissance master (Leonardi Da Vinci), or modern corporate leader (Steve Jobs at Apple), who, while classified as “creative geniuses”, are discarded as outliers beyond the range of ordinary experience.

Because of these difficulties, executive training programs (i.e. MBA) have taken a results-oriented approach to creativity by offering courses in innovation, product development, and strategic planning but have neglected to teach creativity as a distinct but learnable skill.  Some business schools have attempted to develop creativity in their students by immersing them in various artistic disciplines over ten-week periods (Allio & Pinard, 2005).  This “immersion” approach, while having some benefits, at best represents a partial solution as even these researchers noted that “[i]mproving corporate creativity is a systematic challenge” (p. 51).  The result of substantial corporate investment in innovation, innovation training, and “ad hoc” creativity training has had widely varying outcomes, but has produced few leaders that are truly creative.

Creativity training helps leaders increase their ability to set desired outcomes and wield organizational resources to achieve their objectives.  Creativity training does not necessarily need to be long or complicated to be effective.  According to Clapham (1997), simple creativity training focused on basic ideational skills (such as separating divergent from convergent thinking) were virtually indistinguishable from more elaborate creativity training in terms of results.  A recent survey conducted by IBM on global chief human resource officers highlighted the importance of creativity training as part of leadership development initiatives:

To instill the dexterity and flexibility necessary to seize elusive opportunity, companies    must move beyond traditional leadership development methods and find ways to inject within their leadership candidates not only the empirical skills necessary for effective management, but also the cognitive skills to drive creative solutions.  The learning initiatives that enable this objective must be at least as creative as the leaders they seek to foster. (IBM, 2010, p. 19) (GHRO Study) (underline added)

The creative thinking skills model is an ideal model for use in creative training because it assists in the development of the distinct cognitive skills that collectively comprise creative thinking (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 54).  Current research in creativity suggests that there are seven distinct creative thinking skills (diagnostic, visionary, strategic, ideational, evaluative, contextual, and tactical thinking) (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62) involved in the creative process.  While these seven thinking skills are improved by creativity training, these thinking skills are not unique or specific to creativity but are used in other fields including leadership (though they usually are not treated so explicitly).  One way to selectively engage and improve each of the seven distinct thinking skills is by using creativity tools in a systematic manner in order to resolve a particular aspect or element of a creative challenge.  Over time, the habitual use of these tools develops and strengthens the leader’s creative thinking skills from “consciously unskilled” to “consciously skilled” and eventually “unconsciously skilled” (Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2011, p. 292).  Having addressed the connection between leadership and creativity, the remainder of this paper will address how creativity training can aid in the development and use of the creative thinking skills starting with diagnostic thinking (this paper explores all but tactical thinking due to its substantial overlap with current leadership literature).

Diagnostic thinking involves “[m]aking a careful examination of a situation, describing the nature of a problem and making decisions about appropriate process steps to be taken” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62).  Diagnostic thinking is not unique to the creativity field, but instead is practiced by most fields and professions, including leadership.  Effective leadership requires diagnostic thinking—i.e., the ability to take an honest look at the “facts” as they are exist rather than as one might wish them to be.  Holding facilitation sessions as a leader can be a powerful way to “collect” facts that tend to be scattered throughout an organization.  As people throughout an organization have different perspectives and experiences, gathering a widely dispersed pool of participants (“resource group”) increases the chance that the “whole truth” is uncovered rather than a non-representative subset of facts.

Using facilitations to engage in diagnostic thinking is a way to promote a participatory leadership style, which in turn helps promote organizational creativity.  By including people in a facilitation resource group, a leader can help the persons involved in the “problem” become part of the solution, improving both the understanding and resolution of the problem.

The involvement of the participants in the critical exploration of their own process in an intense, open, and confrontational way was an essential discovery.  Results on the groups were highly effective.  Significant changes were seen taking place on the spot. (Keltner, 1998, p.13).

After engaging in diagnostic thinking (and hopefully having gained an understanding of reality), leaders need to engage their capacity for visionary thinking to set the objectives and ideal destination for their organization.  Visionary thinking has been defined as “conceiv[ing] of the result you want to create” (Fritz, 1989, p. 51).  Visionary thinking has become more important over time as leaders cannot rely on extensive data-gathering campaigns before making decisions.  In a world full of increasing complexity and rapid change, “CEOs recognize that they can no longer afford the luxury of protracted study and review before making choices” (IBM, 2010, p. 27) (CEO Study).  Instead, “they are learning to respond swiftly with new ideas to address the deep changes affecting their organizations” (p. 27).

Creativity training promotes visionary thinking by developing greater capacity for imaginative thinking through the use of the affective (emotional) skill of “dreaming”—“to imagine as possible your desires and hopes” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 140).  In addition to dreaming, “storyboarding” can be an effective creativity tool that can be used to create a compelling vision.  Storyboarding involves creating a series of visual depictions of the key steps, issues, or events that need to be addressed in order to eventually reach a desired outcome.  The habitual use of dreaming helps make possibility-thinking a deeply-engrained mindset.  A leader with a strong possibility-oriented mindset and leadership style can transform an organizational culture from one that focuses on the status quo and problems (and why things “can’t be done”) to one that believes in and actually achieves great outcomes.

Leaders with strong visionary thinking skills (i.e., imagination) are able to imagine new concepts, products, or services that others may not have considered (or thought of in a lesser sense).  Strong visionary thinking skills also help leaders recognize the potential of ideas, the possibility of those ideas, and a potential path to their fruition.  For example, the concept of portable consumer devices that play electronically-stored music without a CD or tape has been around for years.  Yet it took the visionary leadership of Steve Jobs of Apple to imagine and create a whole new generation of portable music players (iPod, iPhone, & iPad) with accompanying docking systems and an online store.  Apple, through its sleek consumer products, revolutionized the entire music industry and made obsolete clunky MP3s players and existing music distribution channels.

The essential skill that separates visionary individuals from visionary leaders is that leaders have developed the ability to communicate their vision to followers in a compelling and dynamic matter.  Story telling is an effective tool that helps leaders “to create a vision of the future, a coherent sense of the past and a journey for the listener.  In effect, [stories] take the listener from the past, to the present, and on to the future” (Hansen & Parry, 2007, p. 284).  Telling stories is a useful tool to promote visionary thinking and leadership as:

[Stories] provide an appreciation of the possibilities that the future might offer to followers. Put another way, they articulate scenarios that are possible for the future…. [T]hey make sense of and communicate a future that the organization can determine and pursue for itself.  That future is bounded by many barriers, but within that bounded rationality, visionary leaders confirm confidently that the organization can hew out its own future (p.   286).

Over time, the use of dreaming, storyboarding, storytelling, and other creativity tools designed to promote visionary thinking helps leaders develop both a compelling vision and the ability to communicate the vision to followers in a manner that resonates.  However, once leaders have firmly set the vision and communicated it to their organization, they need to engage in strategic thinking to close the gaps between the vision and current state.

Strategic thinking involves “identifying the critical issues that must be addressed and pathways needed to move towards the desired future” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62). Almost all leaders (one would hope) engage in some form of strategic thinking usually as part of an annual or periodic strategic planning process.  Creative leaders, however, are more likely to engage in strategic thinking as an ongoing and iterative process rather than a once-a-year, formal event:

Standout CEOs expressed little fear of re-examining their own creations or proven strategic approaches. In fact, 74 percent of them took an iterative approach to strategy, compared to 64 percent of other CEOs.  Standouts rely more on continuously re-conceiving their strategy versus an approach based on formal, annual planning (IBM, 2010, p. 26) (CEO Study).

Besides engaging in strategic thinking more often, creative leaders approach strategic thinking with greater “openness” and stronger commitment to a complete and comprehensive strategic process.  A leader without creative training might start a strategic planning session with only a few challenge question(s) (such as “how can we increase revenue by X% next year”) without much consideration of alternative challenge statements, and then start into the ideation phase by developing a list of possible strategies and courses of action.  In contrast, a leader trained in CPS would realize the strategic phase of CPS involves both divergent and convergent thinking and push his or her team to generate twenty or thirty (or more) challenge statements ranging from “how might we acquire more market share” to “how might we acquire our biggest competitor” to everything else in between.  Thus, only after careful convergence on the best challenge statement(s) would a creative leader launch into the ideation phase of CPS.  After all, working on the “right” problem is essential to a successful ideation phase as “[t]he more clearly the challenge is stated, more likely you to get the kind of ideas that can be used to solve the problem” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 175).

Ideational thinking has been defined as “producing original mental images and thoughts that respond to important challenges” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 171).  Ideational thinking is the process of generating numerous ideas that each might potentially resolve (or reduce) the gap between the vision and current state.  While there has been much written about the “eureka” moment in which a brilliant idea is born, more often than not the new idea comes only after hours of tedious labor of ideational “grunt work” and an often prolonged incubation period.  As a result, it is often said that “innovation is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration” (Birkinshaw, Bouquet & Barsoux, 2011, p. 44).

Creative leaders can encourage organizational participation in creativity and idea generation by using brainstorming, forced connections, or similar ideational techniques.  When conducting a brainstorming session, a facilitator with a participatory leadership style (characterized by involving others) as compared to a supervisory style (characterized by directing others) tends to promote increased ideation as a group (Anderson & Fiedler, 1964).  In addition, leaders need to ensure that brainstorming sessions are conducted effectively to get the maximum output from ideational efforts.  For instance, one study found that brainstorming produced more ideas when conducted individually (results aggregated together) than when conducted in groups, possibly because of social inhibition (Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973).  A possible implication from this study is that when group brainstorming is conducted, efforts need to be taken to put the members of the resource group at ease to promote maximal ideational production.

In order to support and promote idea generation throughout an organization, creative leaders should adopt a leadership style that creates a climate that is conducive to creativity.  One important practice as a leader is to encourage ideas thus “increasing the likelihood that followers will bring ideas forward in the future” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 171).  Other important behaviors displayed by creative leaders in order to develop a creative climate include openness to change, involving followers in problem solving efforts, responding positively to new ideas, encourage debate, entertaining diverse perspectives, encouraging freedom and autonomy, encouraging risk taking, and accepting mistakes (p. 271-72).

A common misconception about creative thinking is that it undisciplined thinking, resulting in novel ideas that, if pursued, can sometimes represent a colossal waste of time and organizational resources.  Convergent thinking is an essential skill because “the problem for most large organizations usually isn’t a shortage of ideas.  The real challenge is figuring out how to ferret out the good ones” (Reitzig, 2011, p. 47).  This is especially true in large organizations that generate thousands of ideas, but then have to incur real costs in deciding which ideas to implement and how to implement them.  Leaders should ensure that their organizations have an effective process for evaluating the ideas resulting from ideational efforts and developing the best ideas further.  While convergent thinking is used at every step of CPS, it is most prevalent in evaluative thinking, which usually follows immediately after the ideation phase of CPS.

Evaluative thinking has been defined as “[a]sessing the reasonableness and quality of ideas in order to develop workable solutions” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62) and includes both divergent and convergent thinking.  There are several principles that are essential to successful evaluative thinking.  In contrast to critical judgment, “affirmative judgment” examines what is “right” about an idea (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 96-97).  In addition, as ideas are often conceived in a partially formed state, “transforming” an idea means “changing rough ideas into more elaborated and workable solutions” (p.193).  Because even good ideas have weaknesses, it is important to “strengthen” ideas by “focusing first on the positive aspects of an idea and then by seeking ways to overcome shortcomings associated with the idea” (p. 193).  The creativity tools of POINt (positive, opportunity, issues, new thinking) and PPCo (pluses, potential, concerns, opportunities) are useful because they combine affirmative judgment, divergent and convergent thinking into a single creativity tool focused on evaluating, transforming, and strengthening ideas (p. 193).

Evaluative thinking is an absolutely critical leadership skill, especially when evaluating novel ideas for possible implementation.  “It is possible for [divergent thinking] to be accepted without exploration (i.e., divergent thinking without convergent thinking).  If such novelty proves to be ineffective, we can speak of ‘recklessness,’ which raises the danger of disastrous change” (Cropley, 2006, p. 399).  Ineffective evaluative thinking can potentially result in the rejection of an otherwise effective novel idea (a false negative) or the positive evaluation of an ineffective novel idea (false positive) (p. 400).  When conducted effectively, however, evaluative thinking can identify a potentially valuable idea, and carefully elaborate and support its growth into a fully developed solution that leads to significant positive change when implemented. Because of the potential for prematurely discarding good ideas or implementing bad ideas, evaluative thinking needs to be conducted carefully and in a systematic fashion.  However, even after an idea has been fully developed, it may need to be modified in order to gain acceptance in a particular environment or context.

Contextual thinking has been defined as “[u]nderstanding the interrelated conditions and circumstances that will support or hinder success” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62).  Contextual thinking is a valuable leadership skill because “[t]o successfully introduce novel solutions or to bring about creative change, leaders must learn to skillfully work within their social contexts” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 208).  A “stakeholder analysis” is a useful creativity tool for deploying contextual thinking in a given situation.  This tool is used to rate stakeholders from supportive to opposing (and everything in between), and gives the user the opportunity for divergent thinking as to how to modify the solution or persuade vital stakeholders to move to a supportive or at least a non-opposing position (p. 213).  By employing contextual thinking (through a stakeholder analysis or similar creativity tools), a creative leader can build internal or external consensus concerning a novel solution and secure its successful adoption and implementation.

In summary, creative thinking and facilitation training can greatly improve leadership skills.  Creative leaders are skilled at developing organizational vision, defining the “right” problem, and generating large number of ideas.  In addition, creative leaders are able to recognize good ideas and turn them into solutions and gain acceptance of their proposed solutions from decision makers and constituencies.  Further, creative leaders are more likely to promote organizational cultures where creativity thrives, employees are actively fully engaged, and challenges are overcome using CPS.  Companies can realize significant gains in terms of leadership development and actual results by developing the creative thinking skills of leaders through CPS and facilitation training.

Personal Reactions to Research

After reading the research, I have concluded that the CPS thinking skills model and facilitation training offers a robust framework that can be overlaid on current literature and research on leadership.  Current leadership writing lacks a theoretical framework to address creativity that can be supplied by CPS, particularly the seven thinking skills that comprise the creative thinking skills model.  From research, it appears that the business world usually engages in processes that resemble CPS but apply creative thinking haphazardly and less thoroughly than with CPS.  I am interested in reviewing additional research regarding the connection between facilitation, leadership styles, and creative climate within an organization.  It seems that a leader that is willing to promote CPS and facilitations throughout an organization would usually tend to have a participatory leadership style (or be willing to develop one).  Further, CPS and facilitations (assuming they taken seriously) would also tend to promote a creative climate within an organization, which in turn would make leaders more effective.

From reviewing publications such as the IBM CEO study (2010), it is clear that business world recognizes the need for creative leadership.  It is equally clear, however, that business schools and commentaries lack training and experience in the creativity fields, and as a result, have resorted to “ad hoc” training methods in creativity.  While describing the positive impact of immersing students in artistic mediums, Allio and Pinard noted that “[i]mproving corporate creativity is a systematic challenge” (2005, p. 51).  CPS and facilitation training could fill the need for creativity training that is currently missing in business world and leadership literature.  How might we take CPSM and facilitation training into the business world and education?

References

Allio, R. & Pinard, M. (2005). Innovations in the classroom:  Improving the creativity of MBA   Students.  Strategy & Leadership, 33, 49-51.

Anderson, L. & Fiedler, F. (1964). The effect of participatory and supervisory leadership on creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(4), 227-236.

Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C. & Barsoux, J. (2011).  The 5 Myths of Innovation, MIT Sloan Review, 52(2), 42-51.

Clapham, M. (1997). Ideational Skills Training:  A Key Element in Creativity Training    Programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33-44.

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404.

Fritz, R. (1989).  The Path of Least Resistance:  Learning to become the creative force in your life.  New York: Fawcett-Columbine.

IBM (2010).  Capitalizing on Complexity:  Insights from the Global Chief Executive Study. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com (CEO Study)

IBM (2010).  Working beyond Borders:  Insights from the Global Chief Human Resources Officer Study.  Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com (GHRO Study)

Hansen, H. & Parry, K. (2007). The organizational story as leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 281-300.

Keltner, J. (1989). Facilitation. Management Communication Quarterly, 3(1), 8-32.

Lamm, H. & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 361-388.

Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2005). Current developments in creative problem solving for organizations:  A focus on thinking skills and styles. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 43-76.

Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2011). Creative Leadership:  Skills that drive change. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Reitzig, M. (2011).  Is your company choosing the best innovation ideas?  MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(4), 47-52.

Sternberg, R. & Lubart, I. (1999). The Concept of Creativity:  Prospects and Paradigms. In R. Strenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-31).  Cambridge University Press: New York.

The Importance of Creative Thinking Skills in Executive Leadership

Posted on by
2

My first essay in the field of “creative leadership” as part of my master’s in creativity studies from Buffalo State, SUNY.  I can now write papers in two equally annoying citation styles (APA & Legal).  As a nod to the legal profession, I cited myself as a reference (see if you can find where) in my own paper:

Creativity is quickly becoming the central guiding force in the world economy, displacing the importance of technology in recent years.  As globalization, political turmoil, and other events combine to cause turmoil and even systematic upheaval, leaders must become increasing adept at adapting.  It should be no surprise that corporate America is increasingly demanding leaders with strong creative skills.  A recent study conducted by IBM ranked creativity as the most important skill needed in Chief Executive Officers (2010).

Leaders with strong creativity skills (referred to herein as “creative leaders”) are well-equipped to guide their organizations through the change and growing pains that accompany corporate renewal.  Indeed, companies like Apple guided by powerful creative leadership teams, have become the shining stars of the US economy even during the most challenging economic times.  Companies with creative leadership grow by creating entirely new markets (Apple, for instance, with its blockbuster consumer products) or by dominating existing markets like some pharmaceutical or entertainment companies that repeatedly deliver blockbuster drugs and movies.

Given the importance of creativity in corporate leadership, it is somewhat puzzling why creativity is not a more common attribute in executive leaders.  Part of this deficiency may result from the inherent difficult in “measuring” creativity.  Even within the creativity field there is active debate about if and how creativity can be measured (this debate has not stopped the development of numerous so-called “creativity” tests) (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).  Furthermore, creativity is seemingly intertwined with the myths of the lone investor (like Edison or Tesla), eccentric scientist (Albert Einstein), renaissance master (Leonardi Da Vinci), or modern corporate leader (Steve Jobs at Apple), who, while classified as “creative geniuses”, are discarded as outliers beyond the range of ordinary experience.

Because of these difficulties, executive training (i.e. MBA programs) have taken a results-oriented approach by offering courses in innovation process and new product development but have neglected to teach creativity as a distinct but learnable leadership or thinking skill.  Some business schools have attempted to spur the creativity of their students by exposing them to various artistic disciplines over ten-week “immersion” periods (Allio & Pinard, 2005).  This approach has had some benefits but at best represents a partial solution as even these authors have noted that “[i]mproving corporate creativity is a systematic challenge” (p. 51).  The result of substantial investment in innovation, innovation training, and “ad hoc” creativity training has had widely varying outcomes, but has produced few leaders who are truly creative.

Current research in creativity suggests that there are at least seven different distinct creative thinking skills (diagnostic, visionary, strategic, ideational, evaluative, contextual, and tactical thinking) (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005).  Because most of these thinking skills (diagnostic, strategic, evaluative, contextual, and tactical thinking) are covered in traditional leadership writings (at least to some degree), this paper focuses on visionary, strategic, and ideational thinking.  The presence (or absence of) these thinking skills is often the difference between leadership that is truly creative or is unoriginal, traditional, or even formulaic.

Visionary thinking is defined as “conceiv[ing] of the result you want to create” (Fritz, 1989, p. 51).  The practice of creating a mental picture (i.e., “mental creation”) of a desired outcome is the first step to generating a unique idea or concept, which is eventually transformed into physical reality (Covey, 2004, p. 99).  Visionary thinking constitutes an essential skill for leaders as part of their opportunity and responsibility to “chart the course” for their respective organizations (Maxwell, 2007, p. 35).  Visionary thinking and leadership includes both conceiving of the vision and the communication of that vision:  “A prime leadership skill will be to envision some desired future state of being, and to inspire others to understand and share that vision.” (Morden, 675, 1997).  Visionary thinking is sometimes used to develop mission statements that help guide individuals, departments, or organizations towards a desired destination (Rampersad, 2001).

Strategic thinking involves “identifying the critical issues that must be addressed and pathways needed to move towards the desired future” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2005, p. 62).  Strategic thinking connects visionary thinking with ideational thinking by pinpointing the “gaps” between the desired outcome and current reality with these differences being formulated into challenges (strategic objectives) to be achieved or solved through ideational thinking.

Ideational thinking has been defined as “producing original mental images and thoughts that respond to important challenges” (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 171).  Ideational thinking is the process of generates numerous alternatives ideas for resolving the gap between the vision and current reality.  Ideation is the “grunt work” which often precedes the birth of a “new idea” that becomes the foundation of an effective solution that is becomes critical to the eventual realization of a particular strategic objective.

The first step involved in creative thinking is “assessing the situation” through diagnostic thinking.  “Diagnostic thinking” involves “[m]aking a careful examination of a situation, describing the nature of a problem, and making decisions about appropriate process steps to be taken” (Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2005, p. 62).  In the business world, diagnostic thinking has largely occurred via gathering data as market research or strategic planning.  In some situations, slavishly following data can sometimes lead to massive debacles such as the failed product launch of New Coke in 1985 (Lamoreaux, 2001).  In that case, comprehensive marketing testing confirmed that consumers preferred the test of New Coke over Pepsi or the old Coke formula.  Yet after product launch, New Coke was quickly withdrawn as consumers vigorously objected to the replacement of old coke with New Coke as “destroying an important piece of Americana” (Lamoreaux, 2001, p. 647).

Creative leaders are able to formulate a coherent vision and act boldly even in the absence of the data, or where it could be misleading, conflicting, or altogether incorrect.  In a world full of increasing complexity and change, “CEOs recognize that they can no longer afford the luxury of protracted study and review before making choices” (IBM, 2010, p. 27).  Instead, “they are learning to respond swiftly with new ideas to address the deep changes affecting their organizations” (IBM, 2010, p. 27).

When creative leaders have strong visionary thinking skills, they can produce new ideas, products, or services that can revolutionize the world.  Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc. is an example of a “visionary” creative leader whose company’s products heavily reflect his personal design insights and philosophies.  When a journalist “asked what consumer and market research Apple had done to guide the development of the new product. ‘None,’ Mr. Jobs replied. ‘It isn’t the consumers’ job to know what they want’” (Lohr, 2011).  By combining business acumen with his legendary design skills (a form of visionary thinking) of consumer products, Steve Jobs has repeatedly created blockbuster consumer products (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc.) to become one of the world’s most valuable companies with $27 billion in sales in the first quarter of 2011 (Goldman, 2011).

Sometimes visionary leadership is exercised, not be generating a specific vision, but instead by adopting and supporting the creative vision of another and courageously bringing it into reality in spite of opposition.  Peter Chernin, Chairman of CEO of Fox Entertainment Group, displayed such visionary leadership when he and Jim Cameron committed to producing the movie Titanic based on his instincts and Cameron’s “extraordinary vision.” (Chernin, 2001, p. 248)  At first, this decision appeared to be disastrous as the epic movie started off $15 million over budget before ballooning to nearly double its $115 million budget (at a time when an average movie budget was $50 million).  But after opening, these “losses” quickly turned into enormous profits as Titanic posted record-breaking numbers in international markets.

Executives with strong visionary thinking skills literally “create” the future and thereby “arrive” at the destination significantly before their competitors.  These visionary thinking skills pay off for years to come as their organizations can often leverage their first- or early-mover advantage into market leadership for years to come (like Amazon, EBay, Apple, Google, etc.).  In addition, strong visionary thinking skills prevent leaders from overlooking opportunities within existing markets (For instance, in contrast to Apple, Sony failed to dominate the MP3 player market despite long-standing dominance with personal music device markets).

While most leaders engage in strategic thinking as part of traditional strategic planning processes, creative leaders are more likely to generate unique strategies and obtain truly remarkable outcomes.  This is because visionary, strategic, and ideational thinking combine to generate a larger quantity and higher quality of alternatives than could be obtained without creative thinking skills.  Creative leaders also view strategic planning as an ongoing and iterative process rather than a once-a-year, formal event:

Standout CEOs expressed little fear of re-examining their own creations or proven strategic approaches. In fact, 74 percent of them took an iterative approach to strategy, compared to 64 percent of other CEOs.  Standouts rely more on continuously re- conceiving their strategy versus an approach based on formal, annual planning. (IBM, 2010, p. 26).

Instead of generating unique alternatives like Apple, which expanded adjacently from computer hardware to consumer music hardware and distribution, executives with lower creativity skills will tend to follow traditional business wisdom and deploy algorithmic strategies regardless of the complexities of the situation.  For example, they might acquire competitors, change their distribution strategy, focus on customer service, and so forth.

Strong ideational thinking skills are very helpful to all executives, but especially in certain industries such as the pharmaceutical or entertainment industries that rely heavily on the protections of intellectual property rights.  In these industries, executives are under never-ending pressure to produce blockbuster hits faster than old patents expire or entertainment becomes an irrelevant consumer relic.  When executives have strong ideational thinking skills, they can turn their organizations into powerhouses of ideational thinking that can produce a constant stream of new wonder drugs or chart-topping hits.

Ideational thinking is also very helpful in manufacturing and high-tech industries that require constant process improvement or an entirely “new way of doing things” in order to remain competitive.  Strong ideational thinking skills not only entails of thinking of new ideas, but also finding ways to develop a culture that supports the development of new ideas.  For example, a nationally recognized food service company supported the implementation of process improvements and realized millions in savings annually by installing a knowledge management data base.  This data base contained thousands of minor process enhancements developed at each of its various plants throughout the country and could be reviewed by plant operators to transfer best practices throughout the company in a cost-effective manner (Prince, 2011).

In conclusion, creative leaders can use visionary, strategic, and ideational thinking to develop a clear vision of a compelling future and identify the best pathways and alternatives to reach the destination.  Creative leaders push their organizations to re-examine existing business models and paradigms, frame challenges carefully and in a positive manner, and develop solutions that are novel yet appropriate to the context.  With strong creative leaders, companies can discover opportunities in even mature or saturated industries, disrupt new industries, or even create new markets.

Personal Reactions to Research

After reading the research, I have concluded that the creative problem solving method (CPSM) and thinking skills model offers a robust framework that can be overlaid on current writing and research on leadership and management.  Current leadership writing lacks a theoretical framework to address creativity that can be supplied by CPSM, particularly the seven thinking skills that comprise the creative thinking skills model.  From research, it appears that the business world usually engages in processes that resemble CPSM but is more haphazard and less thorough than with CPSM.  CPSM training would help companies separate their divergent and convergent thinking processes, resulting in better ideas that are thoughtfully evaluated and implemented.

Some examples illustrate this point.  I found leadership articles that extolled the virtue of “visionary” leadership but did not really explain what it means to be visionary or  “how” to be visionary (other than extolling specific visionary leaders or the use of mission statements) (Rampersad, 2001, p. 213).  With the thinking skills model, visionary thinking is treated as distinct, learnable competency with tools such as wishful thinking (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2011, p. 145), storyboarding and storytelling to assist in visionary thinking.  As a side note, I am interested in doing further research and writing on visionary thinking as it frequently gets glossed over because it equated with either brilliant minds (outside of the range of common experience) or as daydreaming (which it is).

Leadership writings also gloss over the role of ideation in generating unique alternatives that are necessary if a strategic plan is actually to comprise new or disruptive thinking.  Older companies in established industries can learn to act like disruptive companies (usually newer or smaller) by developing ideation as a key competency.  I would be interested in doing further reading that looks at the differences in ideational practices and processes (or lack thereof) that are employed between companies in different industries.

From reviewing publications such as the IBM study on CEO (2010), it is clear that business world recognizes the need for creative leadership.  It is equally clear, however, that business schools and commentaries lack training and experience in the creativity fields, and as a result, have resorted to “ad hoc” training methods in creativity.  One article I found discussed how a particular business school used a ten-week immersion program in artistic mediums as way to stimulate creativity, though the authors noted that “[i]mproving corporate creativity is a systematic challenge” (Allio & Pinard, 2005, p. 51).  CPSM could fill the need for creativity training that is currently experienced in the business world and in leadership literature as a gaping void.  How might we take CPSM and creativity training into the business world and education?

References

Allio, R. & Pinard, M. (2005). Innovations in the classroom:  Improving the creativity of MBA Students.  Strategy & Leadership, 33, 49-51.

Chernin, P. (2002). Creative leadership: The strength of ideas: The power of the imagination.  Vital Speeches of the Day, 68(8), 245.

Covey, S. (2004). The Seven Habits of Highly-Effective People.  New York: Free Press.

Fritz, R. (1989). The Path of Least Resistance:  Learning to become the creative force in your life.  New York: Fawcett-Columbine.

Goldman, D. (2011, January 18). Apple sets new record with sales of $27 billion.  CNNMoney.  Retrieved from http://www.cnnmoney.com

IBM (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity:  Insights from the Global Chief Executive Study.  Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com

Lamoreaux, N. (2001). Reframing the past: Thoughts about business leadership and decision making under uncertainty. Enterprise & Society, 2(4), 632-659.

Lohr, S. (2011, January 18). Can Apple Find More Hits Without Its Tastemaker?  The New    York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Maxwell, J. (2001). The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You.  Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.

Morden, T. (1997). Leadership as Vision.  Management Decision, 35, 668-676.

Prince, F. (2011). Interview by T.N. Turner [Written].  Creativity Cruise Seminar.

Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2005).  Current developments in creative      problem solving for organizations:  A focus on thinking skills and styles.  Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 43-76.

Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2011). Creative Leadership:  Skills that drive change. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Rampersad, H. K. (2001). A Visionary Management Model.  The TQM Magazine, 13, 212-213.

Sternberg, R. & Lubart, I. (1999). The Concept of Creativity:  Prospects and Paradigms. In R.  Strenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-31).  Cambridge University Press: New York.