**3. Creativity**

*"Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity"—Charles Mingus.*

In helping leaders and managers think about creativity as a process we can look back to a very early model of creativity which was proposed by G. Wallas [27] which was based on his analysis of the thought processes of physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, mathematician Henri Poincaré, and several other artists, when generating their significant new works. He identified four common phases they each went through and described the psychology of each phase. The first step was described as preparation, where an individual focusses on the problem at hand and builds conscious knowledge based on what currently exists in the field, leveraging curiosity. Secondly he suggested there is an incubation phase during which the problem is internalized and the subconscious works on the issue for some time. This is often the most difficult to allow for in organizational settings where time pressure is ever present. But when seeking creative solutions to wicked problems this is a key reason not to rush the creative process. It takes some time for the subconscious to process and create novel connections. Then there is an intimation or feeling that the solution is near. The third phase is the illumination where the creative solution is forthcoming to the conscious mind. Finally then there is a verification phase where the solution is checked, tested and modified by the conscious. This model of the creative process has stood the test of time and while there has been some debate over the nature of some of the elements remains one of the standards in the psychology of creativity [28].

Another model of creative thinking that is helpful for managers and leaders is based on divergent and convergent thinking. In 1950 in his address as the President of the American Psychological Association, J.P. Guilford decried the lack of studies scientifically examining creativity stating that such neglect was appalling given the importance of creativity to societal wellbeing [29]. He went on to develop a model of intelligence in which he identified divergent production, or the ability to generate multiple options, as a key operation in creative ability [30]. This is then coupled with convergent thinking where we make decisions on a range of options. Basadur et al. [31] proposed a three stage model of the complete creative problem solving process in which each stage consists of a divergent-convergent thinking pair. The three stages are problem finding, problem solving and solution implementation. This inclusion of implementation in the process means by current definitions we would refer to this as innovation. Again in organizational settings there are challenges particularly in encouraging true divergent thinking. Management education has something to answer to here as most subjects and disciplines have been dominated by analysis and theories which help managers narrow their options and make decisions with the information they have, which is classic convergent thinking. Most managers and leaders then have spent much of their careers in convergent thinking modes at the expense of divergent thinking. Management education can learn from arts based education [14] and needs to encourage tools and techniques to promote divergent thinking.

An alternative creativity process that is also helpful for managers and leaders to understand is creative synthesis [32], which can also be referred to as integration or bisociation [33, 34]. Synthesis comes about when the intersection of diverse fields of knowledge come together to create a new amalgamation that is in itself novel and valuable. Particularly in organizations this has significant implications about the value of diversity and the nature of conflict in the creative process. Having diverse

#### *Promoting Curiosity, Creativity and Clarity in Management Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102068*

views, skills and experiences in the organization enables greater creativity because it is when these different planes of knowledge can be bought together is where more creative solutions can result. This is particularly true for wicked problems where if a group all has similar perspectives on a problem they will tend to approach the problem in the same way, and so all get stuck at the same point. By having diverse perspectives involved it often means problems can be approached from multiple different angles providing different ways around obstructions and more creative solutions are uncovered as a result. But managing diverse views can mean dealing with conflict. Creative conflict should be seen as a healthy part of the process and organizations that manage this well ensure that ideas are regularly challenged but avoid it becoming personal [35]. When seeking synthesis, opposing views should be bought together to create unique shared understanding. Again organizational leaders and managers have often been trained out of using synthesis as opposed to analysis. In his influential critique of the formulaic approach to strategic planning and analysis in large organizations H. Mintzberg [36] stated that, "Strategic thinking, in contrast, is about synthesis. It involves intuition and creativity" (p. 108).

In terms of organizational creativity many researchers have been focussed on the apparent tensions between aspects of organizations that may hinder employee creativity, such as structure, direction and predictability, with those that may enhance it such as challenge, autonomy and experimentation [4, 37]. However this notion of structure and creativity being polar opposites is itself being challenged by viewing organizational processes and practices themselves as being dynamic factors that are in a constant state of change over time. Organizational structures and routines that both constrain and enable action are in themselves being created, enhanced or undermined by people's actions within the organization [7].

Design thinking is a term that has been broadly used to describe a designerly approach to creativity and innovation and is seen as describing a user centric innovation process with phases of inspiration, ideation and implementation [38]. Design thinking has become increasingly popular in industry as a means of addressing complex problems and draws explicitly on many creativity processes. In particular having conscious phases of divergent and convergent thinking are often depicted as a part of the process, including the UK Design council's well used double diamond [39]. However, contrasting the double diamond to the three stage model of a "complete creative problem solving process", discussed earlier [31] highlights that the double diamond and many design thinking process do not pay particular attention to the implementation phase. This is a surprising omission due to the fact that implementation is often one of the most challenging parts of the innovation process [17]. Arguably then many design thinking processes could be described as organizational creativity processes rather than full innovation.
