There is an argument that creativity managers attempt to
industrialize creativity. The implication is that we attempt to reduce it to a
formula, mass produce it, turn it into a process, try and design a universal
formula, apply Taylorism and Fordism to
it – and that all this detracts from its true essence.
The above perspective is incorrect and implies that
creativity should somehow be left untouched. There are shades of analysis
paralysis in the argument. There are also implications that the approach is
"old."
As people who produce a lot of creative output ourselves,
we state that the aim is to make creativity tangible, measurable to make
creativity tangible, measurable to make creativity tangible, measurable and useable in order to optimize the quality
of the idea pool [creativity] and the quality of the idea pool [creativity] and
the implementation process [innovation]. We follow this approach because we
know that this increases our success rate.
In addition, the framework we have developed allows us to
apply creativity and innovation universally; it allows us to play with, expand,
develop and apply many of the important concepts.
Creativity,
Innovation and Gender
It is more accurate and safer to argue that there are no
gender differences: that males and females are equally creative and equally
capable of innovation. There are studies that show that, for example, males
dominate in fields such as engineering, IT, mathematics and so forth and that
women dominate fields such as social sciences, fashion etc.
However, all of these studies are highly questionable in
terms of reliability, variability and generalisability. Further, their
conclusions and implications are highly disputed.
Additionally, socialisation, education, nurture,
acceptable gender roles et al play an important part in determining what
activities males and females engage in.
So do yourself a favour, leave this one alone.
Competition
versus Collaboration
Which is more effective, competition or collaboration?
The answer: a synthesis of both.
Competition has
it’s own life force. Scientific tests have proven that competition increases
output but there are caveats:
competitors may not value the goal, they may decide that they may not win etc and so refuse to partake.
Collaboration also improves creative output. That's
because richer ideas result from intellectual cross-pollination – the group is
usually smarter than the individual. Again, there are caveats: groups suffer from
politics, dilution of ideas,
group-think, social loafing etc.
Synthesizing the two optimizes output: first get
participants to compete and then allow them to collaborate.
But for the maximum effect, a particular approach must be
taken that involves allowing participants to compete / collaborate as
individuals, then pairs, smaller groups and then larger groups.
