Creativity and Innovation Models – applying in practice

Creativity and Innovation Models

There are many approached to creativity and innovation, however many users look at the technique and not the process or barriers.

In our brief article on the 4-As (Aim Assess Activate & Apply) we looked at how this process could be easily used to help develop the innovative capacity of an organization. Here we look at the model in more depth, and with a practical approach showing how each step can be applied within an organization.

 

The Creatrix Certification Programme and innovation methodology follows a four-step methodology of Aim, Assess, Activate, and Apply. 

This easy-to-understand and use model is the foundation for unleashing innovative capacity for change within individuals, teams, and organisations.

Aim:  If I say to you, “I want you/your team/your company to be more innovative,” what does that mean?  The word innovation by itself has little value unless we can define the purpose and the context for the need to innovate. 

The Aim in the Creatrix Process is to set that agenda, purpose, reason etc.. 

Aim for the Individual

Individuals, like teams and companies, need to have an objective as to why increasing their capacity to be more innovative is desirable. 

It may be as broad as:

• Personal growth and development, or

As narrow as:

• Wanting to be able to offer more creative ideas in a specific area like innovative customer service or alternative ways of delivering a service or program.

 

Aim for the Team

Teams also need to have strongly stated Aims.  In fact, teams may need to have clearer reasons than individuals.  They need to know what’s the benefit across the group of using the Creatrix Process for greater innovative success—what do we want as a team?

You may have a team that is slowing down, not creating the innovative ideas that it once did, and so they need a boost, a recharge or, as with the individual, it may be that they need to develop innovative ideas fast to meet the competition head on.  Whatever it is, creating an AIM is essential for laying the groundwork for increasing innovative capacity within a team. 

Aim for the Organisation/ Company

A company’s vision or mission (AIM)is often tied to the need for greater innovation.  Vision’s like “Pursuit of Excellence” or “Beating Coca-Cola”, etc. are statements requiring innovation.  Neither one of them can be made a reality without innovation.

Specifics for implementing—that is, creating greater innovative capacity can only be realized by first articulating the direction the organisation needs to go.

Assess:  Individual, team, and organisational assessment begins with the Creatrix Inventory.  Richard E. Byrd, Ph.D., developed the Creatrix Inventory over thirty years ago.  Since then it has been used over 60,000 times throughout the world.  It was recently re-normed in 1996, and again in 2000 by Jacqueline Byrd, Ph.D.  This reliable and valid instrument measures an individual’s level of creativity and risk-taking, and ultimately innovative capacity.

Conceptual Framework

About Creativity

Innovative companies know how to capitalise on their creative and risk-taking employees to create innovative environments.  The Creatrix Inventory is designed to help people identify their levels of creativity (the degree to which they can produce unconventional ideas) as well as their orientations toward risk taking (high, moderate, or low).  An entire organisation can be profiled in terms of its capacity to be creative, take risks, and innovate.

Creativity may be defined as the ability to produce new ideas.  Those ideas may be as mundane as turning eggshells into little faces or as sublime as Athelstan Spilhaus’ floating cities in the Atlantic Ocean.  They may be as practical as the saltshaker or as absurd as an alphabet with an astronomical number of letters.

When asked “Are you creative?” many people answer, “no”.  Some of these negative answers are correct, but most of them are wrong, or at least misplaced.  Unfortunately, people are most often in situations that demand repetition rather than creativity, conformity rather than diversity.  If their actions are unconventional, other people may be suspicious of them or view them as unpredictable.

Restrictions on experimenting with new ideas are imposed on most people from early childhood.  Children are instructed to keep within the lines of the colouring book, and doodling is discouraged.  Creating fanciful stories is interpreted as lying, and pretending is tolerated only until a child is a certain age—then it becomes embarrassing.  Being out of line—the line to the dining hall/ cafeteria, the toilets, the water fountain, or the playground—is considered bad behavior.

Adults on the job are also caught in a variety of binds.  Management may want coordination, implementation, and follow-through performed in the same old way, or the amount of creativity desired may be unclear.

Creativity is measured by originality.  In fact, about the only criterion for creativity that researchers agree exists is originality.  A small percentage of people live in a phantasmagoric world of wildly imaginative ideas; others are at the opposite extremes—out of touch with daydreams.  Most people, however, lie between the two extremes. However what is “old hat” in one environment is creative or leading edge in another – its all about context. Sometimes being creative is about taking something from one environment and making it work in another (practical innovation)

“Genius” seems to be the only word available to describe the truly creative thinker.  The word used to distinguish an Einstein from a bright quiz-show participant.  Unfortunately—because the word is also used to refer to a person with a high I.Q.—people often assume that creativity and intelligence are related.  There is little evidence to support that assumption.  Many people with only average intelligence have original ideas, and some of the brightest people seldom have original thoughts.  Although I.Q. may be an accurate predictor of success in school and on certain types of jobs, it provides no guarantee about a person’s ability to make a unique contribution to any field of work.  However, just as I.Q. is distributed on a normal curve, so is unconventional thinking.  Some people are extremely unconventional, some are extremely conventional, and most lie somewhere in between.

About Risk Taking:

Creativity in an organisation involves risk taking.  Management often claims it wants employees to be creative, but usually it does not welcome the associated risks.  In order to present new ideas, the creative person must sometimes be the risk taker.  Risk taking may mean that a person tenaciously pushes his or her ideas onto someone else—an employer, a colleague, a department—at some risk to the creator’s security, career, reputation, or self-esteem.

Although risk taking is not a trait (i.e., it results from a person’s fear of failure, fear of rejection, the cost-benefit factors of a situation, etc.), everyone develops an unmistakable risk orientation over the years.  That orientation (high, moderate, or low) may change during different periods in the person’s life.  The organisation’s response (e.g., supportive, punitive, conservative, or aggressive) will also affect the member’s risk-taking orientation.

When people determine their own orientations, they can predict their own responses to different situations.  Being aware of their employers’ responses will also help employees to predict how the employers will react to specific proposals.  This knowledge permits better management of risk for all concerned.

Risk takers also appear on a normal curve.  Those who take all their cues from the organisation or others, make up roughly 16 percent.  Those who take their cues only from themselves, make up another 16 percent.  The other 68 percent fall between the extremes.  Most people take cues, to varying degrees, from the environment and their own convictions, needs, and interests.

What Is Your Creativity And Risk-Taking Orientation?

Measuring the creative sense and risk-taking orientation of individuals in organisations helps to explain why one organisation stagnates and dies, another takes excessive risks and lands in bankruptcy, and yet others are moderately to extremely successful.

As the Creatrix Inventory suggests, your creativity and risk-taking orientation can be plotted on a matrix.  The vertical scale designates the degree to which you are generally a low, moderate, or high risk taker.  The horizontal scale designates the degree of your creative abilities.  The Creatrix Inventory is further divided into eight zones, each representing a creativity/risk-taking orientation.  Although there are shades between the orientations—matters of degree—only the eight “pure” orientations will be described here to provide contrast, illustrations, and clarity.

The four orientations in the corners represent people who rank either extremely high or extremely low on creativity or risk taking.  When the extreme types become more socialised, Sustainers (low creativity, low risk taking) may become Modifiers; Challengers (low creativity, high risk taking), Practicalizers; Innovators (high creativity, high risk taking), Synthesizers; and Dreamers (high creativity, low risk taking), Planners.

Assessing where you are

The Creatrix inventory and profile can help to assess you, your team’s and your organisations strengths.  The assessing stage is an important part in any organisational development process.

Activate:  Just knowing that innovative capacity is a function of creativity and risk taking is not enough.  Through our research and experience we’ve identified and isolated the Seven Drivers of Creativity and Risk Taking that influence innovative abilities.  Activating these Drivers are what the application process is all about. Its about doing something with the information you now have.

Overview of the Drivers

Knowing that innovation is a function of creativity and risk taking does little in terms of adding value.  That is, what value is there if I tell you that you need to become more creative or take more risks?  Through rigorous qualitative and quantitative research methods, The Creatrix Team has isolated the Seven Drivers that influence innovative abilities. 

 

These are:

Creativity Drivers	Risk Taking Drivers
Ambiguity	Authenticity
Independence	Resiliency
Inner-Directed	Self-Acceptance
Uniqueness

Understanding these Drivers and how they influence individual, team, and organisational behavior is a critical component to understanding how to accelerate innovative capacity.  To fully grasp the power of the Drivers, we have incorporated a series of challenges designed first to develop an intellectual understanding of the Driver, second, to develop a deeper personal understanding of the Driver, and finally a challenge to internalize the Driver thereby providing the participant an opportunity to act on their own unique understanding of the Driver.

Once these Drivers are understood, learning how to apply them to real world work situations becomes the challenge, that when overcome, result in tremendous impact on an individual, team, and organisation.  To apply the Drivers, one must develop an appreciation for how they influence behavior.  For example, resiliency is a hallmark of people who take risks.  Being able to rebound from rejection is a learned behavior that enables us to take more risks and recover quickly from our mistakes.  Learning how to become more resilient helps us to persevere in a challenging business climate that often requires more than one attempt at problem resolution.  Clearly, resiliency is something we like to see in those we work with and even in ourselves.

Creativity Drivers

Ambiguity:	Able to operate with uncertainty and vagueness—don’t require high structure, goals, or objectives to accomplish or create things, ideas, services, or products.
Independence:	Not subject to the control or influence or determination of another or others—are not willing to subordinate themselves—don’t like to be managed.
Inner-Directed:	Determine their own expectations and norms—sing to their own tune.
Uniqueness:	Appreciate and value differences—value uniqueness in both self and others.

 

Risk-Taking Drivers

Authenticity:	Being what you purport to be:  genuine—“walk your talk”—“tell it like it is”, “true to yourself”
Resiliency:	The capacity to spring back, rebound and to successfully adapt and learn even in the face of adversity and stress
Self-Acceptance:	Approving and/or satisfied with your behaviours or actions—“like yourself”

 

 So what are you going to do now?

Apply is the fourth stage of the model.

Apply:  Our applications programme brings the concepts of creativity, risk taking, and innovative capacity to life.  Our unique ability to apply the Drivers in real-life situations that actually get results is the key component to accelerating innovative capacity for change in your organisation.

If I say to you, “I want you/your team/your company to be more innovative,” what does that mean? 

The word innovation by itself has little value unless we can define the purpose and the context for innovating.  The AIM in the Creatrix Process aims to do that. 

 

Apply for the Individual

Individuals, like teams and companies, need to take action to help them achieve their stated objective.  In the context of the  Creatrix, this will be applying changes which have the goal of increasing or decreasing one of the drivers.

Apply for the Team

As a way of starting to develop the culture of the organisation, applying effort to changing how the team uses one or more of the drivers can be a critical first step to change.  With all members of the team working on one or two drivers those actions and behaviours will be encouraged.  Working on developing one driver also helps to create a common goal for the team to form around and to support each other.

Apply for the Organisation

In the same way that a focus on an individual driver for teams can start the culture change process – the same is true for the organisation as a whole.  To change the culture for an organisation however must be led from the top and driven by senior managers in a consistent way.

 

So how can you apply the Creatrix?

Well you have a choice -

• Call in a Creatrix Coach to work with your organisation OR
• Get certificated to use the Creatrix with your teams or clients

Promoting Human Creativity – Walonick

Promoting Human Creativity

David S. Walonick, Ph.D.

Defining creativity

How do we define creativity? The most frequent answers are “new”, “unique”. “different”, and “better”. The dictionary provides little assistance: “creativity: the ability to create”. Creativity consultant Joyce Wycoff (1991) defines creativity as “new and useful”. Creativity is the act of “seeing things that everyone around us sees while making connections that no on else has made.” (p. 22)

At the other end of the spectrum, B.F Skinner (1974), the foremost expert on behaviorist theory, describes creative individuals as very good at generating mutations. He points out that people who produce more mutations are more likely to generate one that is reinforcing. The behaviorist theory falls short because it fails to recognize or explain the uniqueness of individuals.

In the classic book Science and Human Values, (Harper & Row. 1956) J. Bronowski states that the creative activity of the scientist and the artist are the same. Creativity is an attempt to discover “hidden likeness” in the universe. It is a search for recognition and order.

Many writers and artists have described creativity as something external to the body. They believe that the source of inspiration exists outside the person. Author Joseph Heller describes his own experience. “I don’t understand the process of imagination though I know that I am very much at its mercy. I feel like these ideas are floating around in the air and they pick me to settle upon. The ideas come to me. I don’t produce them at will” (Zdenek, 1983, p.10).

In contrast, business analysis Scott Witt (1983) believes that new ideas are never original, but rather, they involve the combining and adaptation of other people’s ideas. He refers to the brightest people in business, science and arts, as Creative Copycats because their ideas are an adaptation of other products, formulas or systems.

Child development author Joseph Chilton Pearce describes creativity as “moving from the known to the unknown.” Culture exerts a negative force on creativity according to Pearce, however, “were it not for creativity, culture itself would not be created”. (Pearce, 1974, p. 23)

Donald Hebb, one of the foremost theoreticians on the subject of the human brain, believes that “every normal human being is creative all the time…it is not something that occurs only in outstanding individuals”. (Restak, 1984, p. 228)

Creativity is an expression of our unique perspective to a situation or problem. It transcends our desire to be part of the group. Abraham Maslow referred to self-actualization as the need to express our individual talents and become the best that we can. It is a drive to fulfill our potential. Maslow identified fifteen traits of a self-actualized person. These included highly valued traits such as self-acceptance, spontaneity, independence, tolerance, altruism, ethics, and capable of loving others. (Wycoff, 1991, p. 24)

Wycoff (1991, p. 26) identifies four traits found in creative people:

1) They are willing to take risks and have the courage to be wrong.

2) They are willing to express their thoughts and feelings.

3) They have a sense of humor.

4) They accept and trust their own intuition.

David Perkins, of Harvard University, has identified several other traits common in creative people: (Wycoff, 1991, p. 27)

5) They have a drive to find order in a chaotic situation.

6) They are interested in unusual problems, as well as solutions.

7) They have the ability to make new connections and challenge traditional assumptions.

8) They temper idea creation by testing and judgment.

9) They enjoy pushing the boundaries of their competence.

10) They are motivated by the problem itself, rather than any kind of reward or recognition.

Wycoff believes that the traits of creativity can be taught. She points out the near total failure of our educational system to encourage and teach these characteristics. In fact, it would seem that our schools are teaching the opposite traits (e.g., discipline, conformity, silence, and “safe” thinking). Robert Root-Bernstein, a physiologist at Michigan State University, points out that “our greatest scientists are generally skilled in non-verbal thinking, yet we usually discourage science students from studying artistic subjects”. (Wycoff, 1991, p. 178)

The phases involved in the creative process were first described by German physiologist Herman Helmholtz in the late nineteenth century. (Edwards, 1986, p. 3) He identified three stages of creativity: saturation, incubation and illumination. In the first decade of twentieth century, French mathematician Henri Poincaré identified a fourth step that follows the other three. Verification is putting a solution into concrete form and checking it for errors or usefulness. Our understanding of the creative process remained stable until the early 1960s, when American psychologist Jacob Getzels proposed the idea that a preliminary stage of creativity involves finding or formulating a problem. (Edwards, 1986, p. 4) This preliminary stage was named first insight by another American psychologist, George Kneller. (1965)

Current thinking is that the creative process does involve at least five distinct phases: first insight, saturation, incubation, illumination and verification. Illumination happens in a flash–it is the brief moment of the “Ah-Ha!” experience. The other phases of creativity vary dramatically in the amount of time involved. Saturation and verification are easily understood. Saturation is the information gathering stage. There have been volumes written on how to do research, and libraries are designed to assist in gathering information. The process of verification is the implementation or testing of an idea, and it is also easily accessible to our human understanding. Note that both saturation and verification have to do with conscious thought. The other three phases (first insight, incubation, and illumination) are more mysterious and operate at some sort of subconscious level.

Betty Edwards (1987), a professor of art at California State University, identified four experiences of a creative artist. During the initial stages of drawing, an artist works for long periods without a sense of time passing. While drawing, the artist has a feeling that the object is somehow related to, or looks like something else. The artist has a need to work in isolation, away from verbal interruption. The artist has a special way of seeing the whole field, while somehow being able to perceive the relationships of the individual parts.

Of particular interest is the phase of illumination. Edwards (1986, p. 39) proposes that the “Ah-Ha” is a visual experience. She points out that many of the words relating to creativity involve visual reference. Creativity is the: “the ability to see problems in new ways”, “to see things from a new perspective”, and “the knack of looking for answers in unexpected places”. The dictionary defines illumination as “throwing light on a subject in order to see it better”. Insight, foresight, hindsight, and clear-sightedness all contain visual reference. The flash of illumination is accompanied by feeling of certainty and exhilaration.

Author Joe Khatena (1978) describes four creative thinking abilities: 1) Fluency is the ability to produce many ideas for a given task. 2) Flexibility is the ability to show a conceptual shift in thinking relative to a given task. 3) Originality is the ability to produce unusual or clever ideas that not many other people think of. 4) Elaboration is the ability to add details to the basic idea.

Barriers to creativity

There are many obstacles to creativity. The major barrier is the little voice in our heads giving all the reasons why we can’t do something, or why something won’t work. We must silence the voice during the initial stages of creative process. Logical, critical and judgmental thoughts will reduce the quality of the initial creative process.

Edwards proposes the idea that language itself might actually hinder creative thinking. She believes that direct perception is an integral part of our thinking, a way of “seeing” without using words.

One of the major obstacles to creativity is the fear of rejection. Rejection can become disabling when is stops us from taking action. Fear of rejection, or rejection itself, can stifle creativity.

Morris Berman (1989) made adaptations to Freud’s theory and discusses how creativity is thwarted in the young child. Type I occurs when the child’s sensual exploration of her surroundings is hindered. Curiosity is minimized and the child no longer engages in exploration of the environment. Type II comes as a result of psychic upheaval. While the child’s creativity survives, she is plagued by the pain and conflict of neurosis. Type III creativity emerges when the child avoids the emotional trauma of repression and creativity exists without conflict. (Ferguson,1990, p. 180)

Freud’s paradigm for understanding creativity does not appear to be useful or correct, possibly because he dealt so much with the abnormal. In fact, several researchers have found that creative people tend to be more depressed than the general population. They are more prone to alcoholism, mood-swings and suicide. Emotionally disturbed and behavior-disorientated children often show creativity levels exceeding their peers. It is interesting, however, that while these relationships exist, creativity itself is manifested during comparatively stable emotional states. Does emotional instability generate creativity, or does creativity produce emotional instability, or does the relationship involve some hidden variable not yet understood? The answers have yet to be determined.

Joseph Chilton Pearce believes that “culturization” is the reason we loose our creative abilities. He states that “cultural conditioning makes it unlikely that we ever consider anything outside the confines of cultural acceptances”. (Pearce, 1974, p. 49) Pearce believes that creativity is associated with a hypnotic-like trance state. The ability to enter a trance-like state appears at around age seven in all cultures, and in western cultures, it disappears during early adolescence. Only 20% of the adults in this country retain their childhood ability to enter a deep trance.

Piaget discusses preadolescent “reality adjustment” as the last phase of a child’s “magical thinking”. This, according to Piaget, is the beginning of true maturation. Pearce takes an exactly opposite view, and discusses the idea that the preadolescent’s “reality adjustment” marks the loss of creative potential. Beginning around age nine or ten, the child begins to adopt a kind of cultural logic, that defines their perceptual reality. By age fourteen, the adolescent has internalized the cultural reality, and thoughts outside the limits of cultural acceptance are difficult or impossible. Our “world view” becomes an editor of our precepts. Pearce states that “acculturation subverts, but never destroys creativity”. (Pearce, 1974, p. 197)

Promoting creativity

Creativity is a popular topic today, and several books and journals articles are dedicated to the subject. Many people believe that creativity is somehow dependent on “natural talent”. Most researchers, however, indicate that the skills involved in creativity are something that can be taught and learned.

In A Whack on the Side of the Head, Roger von Oech (1983) describes the characteristics that promote the creative process. These might be thought of as guidelines for a brainstorming session:

1) Generate as many answers as possible. Don’t look for the one “right answer”.

2) Don’t ask if something is “logical”.

3) Set aside all rules.

4) Don’t judge the quality of an idea by looking at its “practicality”.

5) Allow ambiguity.

6) Don’t worry about being wrong.

7) Indulge yourself…let yourself play.

8) Let yourself go into new areas.

9) Be foolish and silly.

10) Accept your own creativity.

11) Make yourself receptive to new ideas.

Scott Witt adds that confidence, independence, and curiosity are the prime ingredients of ingenuity. Witt maintains that creative people have unbending confidence in their ability to come up with solutions to problems, and that they enjoy leaving the beaten path and exploring unusual possibilities. Most researchers stress the visual aspect of creativity, however, Witt emphasizes the power of word associations (wildcatting) in generating ideas. (Witt, 1983)

In the late 1970s, E. Paul Torrance from the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Georgia, conducted several experiments to determine if creative thinking can be taught. After numerous trials involving hundreds of subjects, Torrance and coworkers found that brief and intensive training can change our thinking to include more right-brain processes. After training, subjects were better able to apply right and left hemisphere modes in a complementary way. (Ferguson, 1990)

Recent research by Terry Greene and Helga Noice states that the act of complementing students on their clothing, hair and/or jewelry will improve their performance on creativity tests. While their sample sizes are small, startling differences are apparent. Creativity is somehow related to the emotional state of the creator. (Ferguson, 1990)

Texas A&M chemist Thomas Taylor (1983) explored the effects of a sensory deprivation float tank on learning. Floaters listened to lessons with floating in the tank. Nonfloaters listened to the same lessons in a quite darkened room. Three levels of learning were measured: rote learning, the ability to apply information to new situations, and the ability to use the information in unique and creative ways (synthesis thinking). Taylor reported that floaters learned better for all three levels, but that they were vastly superior in synthesis (creative) thinking.

Michael Hutchison in Megabrain (1986) points out the importance of stimulating the brain with challenges, change, ambiguities, and novel experiences. A variety of devices have been developed by inventors who claim to be able to enhance creativity.

An electronic device known as the Alpha Stim applies microampere current through the earlobes to stimulate the brain. Physician William Bauer (1983) of Case Western University believes that the electricity produced by the device alters the neurochemicals in the brain, thus establishing the energy for creation. Another device known as the BT5 developed by Bob Beck uses a similar technique to apply current to the indentation in the jaw below the earlobes. I have used the BT5 on several occasions. While it does evoke a slight change in consciousness, I cannot report any perceptible improvement in my own creativity.

Several techniques and devices have been designed to produce brain wave entrainment at theta and alpha frequencies. These brain waves are characterized by low frequencies (between five and twelve Hertz), and are associated with relaxation, lucid dreaming, and creativity. The reasoning is that by artificially altering brain waves to the frequencies that are associated with creativity, we can thereby enhance creativity. The main idea is that the brain can be induced to “lock on” (i.e., to become entrained) to an artificially produced signal.

Biophysicist Gerald Oster from the New York Mount Sinai School of Medicine, reported in 1973 that two tones of different frequencies could produce brain wave entrainment if the tones were played into different ears. The beat frequency, or the difference between the two tones, could produce brain wave entrainment in the delta, theta and alpha frequencies. Author Robert Monroe referred to this phenomenon as frequency following response, and designed and patented a technique for creating audio tapes called Hemi-Sync. In a series of EEG experiments, Monroe reported that audio entrainment also caused both hemispheres of the brain to work in unison. (Hutchison, 1986, p. 199) I have used several brands of entrainment audio tapes on many occasions. They do indeed produce rapid relaxation and a change of consciousness. I usually fall asleep quite quickly when I listen to these tapes. I cannot report any direct improvement in my own creativity, although I would describe my brief presleep thoughts as “strange”, or kind of “off-the-wall”.

Neurophysiologist W. Gray Walter conducted a series of experiments in the 1950s using flashing lights to produce brain wave entrainment. During photic driving (entrainment), both hemispheres of the brain would work in unison. During the 1960s and 1970s a flurry of studies explored the photo driving phenomena. The result is that many photo driving devices have been designed. The most popular, known as the Synchro-Energizer, was patented by Ohio psychiatrist Denis Gorges. (Hutchison, 1986) It uses a combination of flashing lights and audio tones to produce brain wave entrainment. I have used a device similar to the Synchro-Energizer on many occasions. It does produce a rapid change of consciousness, and again, I would describe my thoughts as sort of “different”. However, I do not recall any creative revelations while using the device. Like the Hemi-Sync tapes, I generally fall asleep very quickly.

Physicist Bob Beck has designed another entrainment device known as the Magnetic Mood Pacer II. This device produces a pulsed magnetic field at 7.83 Hertz to produce a magnetic field similar to the background radiation of the Earth. Beck claims his device makes people feel good (Hutchison, 1986). I developed a similar device and have used it on myself and others on many occasions. EEG experiments confirm that brain waves do indeed become entrained with rotating magnetic fields and magnetically pulsed fields.

Magnetic field generators are different from the other devices. They do not require the active participation of the person being exposed to the magnetic fields. They are nonintrusive, and there is no conscious awareness of their presence. Creative endeavors such as brainstorming sessions might be enhanced by the artificial generation of alpha and theta-range magnetic fields.

Several drugs have been developed to promote intelligence. A particular class of these drugs is known as nootropics. None of the nootropics are FDA approved, so there are no sales in the United States, however, they can be purchased over the counter in most European countries and Mexico. (Dean and Morgenthaler, 1990, p. 43-51)

Piracetam is the most well-known nootropic. A large number of animal and human double-blind controlled studies indicate that piracetam does indeed enhance cognition. In a 1976 study of rats, neurophysiologists Buresova and Bures found that piracetam promotes the flow of information between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. Communication between the hemispheres is often associated with creative thought. In a more recent study, Wilsher Dilanni and a team of neurologists (1985) found significant improvements in dyslexic children. They theorized that the increased communication between the hemispheres was responsible for the improvement.

In spite of the U.S. ban, piracetam is being manufactured and marketed by most major pharmaceutical companies. Whether or not piracetam actually enhances creativity has yet to be determined. However, the number of brand names that the drug is marketed under stands as a testimonial to the public’s perception of its usefulness. These include: Avigilen, Cerebroforte, Cerebrospan, Cetam, Dinagen, Encefalux, Encetrop, Euvifor, Gabacet, Genogris, Memo-Puren, Nootron, Nootrop, Nootropil, Nootropyl, Normabrain, Norzetam, Novocetam, Pirroxil, Pscoton, Stimucortex, and UCB-6215.

Another class of drugs believed to enhance creativity is known as psychotropics. These include highly controversial and illegal drugs such as marijuana, LSD25, mescaline, and psilocybin. While government hysteria has essentially banned current research, a variety of studies conducted in the 1960′s indicated that the illumination stage of creativity can be enhanced by the use of these drugs. In 1966, Willis Harman and a team of psychologists conducted a pilot study to examine the effects of mescaline sulfate on creativity. (Tart, 1972, p. 455-472) They used several objective instruments (Purdue Creativity Test, Miller Object Visualization, and Within Embedded Figures Test), as well as subjective reports from a variety of sources including the subjects’ self evaluations, psychiatric assessments, and industry feedback. Significant improvements in creativity were reported. Subjects’ self-reports suggested eleven possible mechanisms to explain the improvement. Note the striking similarities between subject’s beliefs about their creativity, and the traits proposed by Wycoff, Perkins and von Oech.

1) Low inhibition and anxiety

2) Capacity to structure problems in a larger context

3) High fluency and flexibility of ideation

4) High capacity for visual imagery and fantasy

5) High ability to concentrate

6) High empathy with external processes and objects

7) High empathy with people

8) Accessibility of unconscious resources

9) Ability to associate seemingly dissimilar elements in meaningful ways

10) High motivation

11) Capacity to visualize the completed solution in its entirety

Brain waves of creativity

Roger Sperry and Michael S. Gazzaniga performed a series of experiments on epileptic patients in the early late 1950s and early 1960s, where they cut the corpus callosum which connects the two brain hemispheres. When the two halves of the brain could not communicate with each other, it became clear that each half had its own traits. The left brain is responsible for language, logic, numbers, sequence, detail, linear processes, symbolic representation and making judgments. The right brain processes images, rhythm, music, imagination, color, patterns, emotions and is nonjudgmental. (Restak, 1984, p. 246-248)

The right and left hemispheres of the brain are in communication with each other through the corpus callosum, a bundle of nerves joining the two halves of the brain. Because of their different modes of thinking, the two halves of our brains might experience conflicting interpretations of awareness. Many theorists have suggested that creativity is a right-brain experience, however, some believe that creativity somehow involves the communication between the hemispheres.

Norman Don of the University of Illinois studied EEG patterns of individuals while they were meditating. Subjects self-reported peak experiences were preceded by a significant collapse of the alpha frequencies. (Ferguson, 1990)

Elmer and Alice Green (1977) of the Menninger Foundation believe that theta brain waves are the source of creative thinking. They used EEG biofeedback to teach people to enter the theta state. Participants reported that while in the theta state, they relived (actually experienced) past long-forgotten events. The also found that participants had “new and valid ideas or synthesis of ideas, not primarily by deduction, by springing by intuition, from unconscious sources”. (Hutchison, 1986, p. 97) One hypothesis is that theta waves, which have high amplitudes and low frequencies, somehow enable the brain cells to form new neural structures.

Lester Fehmi, director of the Princeton Biofeedback Research Institute, believes that hemispheric synchronization may provide one of the clues to understanding creativity. Synchronization occurs when both hemispheres of the brain generate the same brain waves. Fehmi describes the synchronization experience as a feeling of “into-it-ness”, or a feeling of being more unified with the experience. Hutchison, 1986, p. 219)

Chemist Thomas Taylor studied the EEG patterns of students while they synthesized information, by using the information in a creative way to solve a new problem. Taylor found that brain waves were in the theta state at the moment when the concepts “made sense” to the students. During the brief theta experience, Taylor reported a series of powerful fluctuations taking place throughout the brain. (Hutchison, 1986, p. 292)

Summary

Creativity is an area of human development that encompasses the future of our planet. Traditional ways of seeing the world and dealing with social issues no longer seem adequate. Clearly, we are in need of new and creative approaches to our problems. Anything we can do to promote creativity is a step in the right direction.

---

© Dr. David Walonick – used with permission
Web

survey software to design online surveys and questionnaires David’s free web survey software will create sophisticated internet surveys as well as written questionnaires and scripts for telephone interviewing. Plus, you’ll find information on questionnaire design and marketing research methods.

33 Ways to develop an Innovative Culture in your org.

Ways to develop a Culture of Innovation

Many organisations strive for a competitive edge, an advantage over their competitors to help ensure their sustainability. Innovation is one such way, but for too long many organisations have concentrated on developing product and ignored the possibilities of innovation as a culture. Having an innovative friendly culture can harness the innovative and creative capacities of the entire workforce (and your customers and suppliers) to your advantage. But it is a difficult and for some a scary step.

Below are some of the activities that you may need to undertake on your journey to increasing the innovative capacity of your organisation

 

1. Great sources of new ideas are new starters to the company. Use them wisely and creatively
2. Always question longstanding beliefs
3. Ask questions about everything. After asking questions, ask different questions. After asking different questions, ask them in a different way
4. Avoid analysis paralysis
5. Change – change teams, project members and responsibilities
6. Communicate – open communication about anything and everything – make it easy to do
7. Communicate, communicate, communicate and communicate again. Ensure that every important message is repeated more than five times
8. Concentrate on the process of being effective at taking an idea from initial thought to application or market.
9. Embrace and celebrate failure. Success comes from volume not just quality
10. Encourage interaction between parts of the organisation that traditionally don’t communicate or usually collaborate together
11. Encourage people to meet informally, one-on-one, and in small groups, not just in functional teams
12. Ensure that everyone knows that reducing costs as a core strategy solves nothing. High costs are usually a sign of deeper or systematic problems
13. Have fun. If you’re not having fun (or at least enjoying the process) something is off
14. Imagine what you can make happen rather than dwelling on what might
15. Involve your customers as partners in the innovation process, while understanding that they are usually limited to wanting incremental innovations
16. Learn to see things differently
17. Learn to tolerate and enjoy ambiguity in data, and methods
18. Make decisions quickly at the lowest level possible
19. Make innovation the responsibility of all employees with appropriate objectives for each and every functional area
20. Make many new mistakes
21. Making innovation process rigid and core will stop spontaneous innovation efforts
22. No fixed rules or formula’s, only guiding principles
23. Notice change and innovation attempts and reward them
24. Provide time for your people to explore ideas and concepts through trust
25. Remove all organisational barriers which are stopping people communicating BHAG – Bold, Hairy Audacious Goals to senior management/ decision makers
26. Remove fear from the culture and management style
27. Reward collective, as well as individual successes, maintaining individual accountabilities, keeping innovation “heroes” visible
28. Seek a wide range of viewpoints. A diversity of views sparks more than conflict, it sparks innovation
29. Seek ways to learn from experience and find new and effective methods of sharing learning with your people
30. Use stories to support the transfer of learning
31. Spark interest – add images, photos and colour to your environment
32. Take a “go-slow now to go-fast later” approach, get many people involved at the beginning
33. Think of “self-organising” innovation, rather than “command and control” innovation
34. Think in the long term. Short term-ism has been proven not to work!

Using powerful organisational tools like the Creatrix can help to identify where the strengths of innovation lie in your organisation and provide a benchmarking took for measuring progress as you move towards being increasingly innovative – for innovation is a journey not a destination.

Byrd & Brown in their book provide a useful tool “the innovation Equation” where:

Innovation=creativity * risk-taking

In providing this equation the authors provide us – the change agents with a powerful methodology

**Article based upon an origional piece  by Mitch Ditkoff and Val Vadeboncoeurby

Creative thinking exercise

FRIDGES AND ANIMALS…?!?!

Ask the delegates to answer the following questions on paper, reviewing the answers to each question before moving on to ask the next question

QUESTION 1: How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?

ANSWER: Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe, and close the door

This question tests whether they tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way

QUESTION 2 How would they put an elephant into a refrigerator?

WRONG ANSWER: Open the refrigerator then put in the elephant and close the door

CORRECT ANSWER: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door

This tests their ability to think through the repercussions of their actions

QUESTION 3: The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend except one. Which animal did not attend?

ANSWER: The elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator

This tests their memory

Even if they did not answer the first three questions correctly, they still have one more chance to show their abilities…

QUESTION 4: There is a river they must cross but it is inhabited by crocodiles. How would they manage it?

ANSWER: They swim across. All the crocodiles are attending the animal conference

This tests whether they learn quickly from their mistakes

Innovation, the first step – dare, change, take a risk

Innovation is about the first step

Innovation is the buzzword of the late naughties, but what does it mean?

“Innovation is the act of introducing something new“

 

Often we focus on the act of creating, indeed many training and development programmes look to developing creativity in order to create innovative cultures. Is this right?

Innovation can mean two very different things, I suspect that often we confuse the two. many organizations take innovation to be something to do with product and R&D or technology. This is indeed a very specialist area, however it is not for the technology people to hijack a valuable culture and change methodology and approach. In the service sector, in public sector and the NHS we need to look at the culture (how we do things) and the behaviours to deliver added value. This piece looks at innovation as a strategy everyone in an organisation can use to increase productivity, morale and the business as a whole.

You only need to look around. Look at  - peoples houses, their gardens, their cars, their sense of fashion – creativity is everywhere. Unfortunately the culture of many work places encourages people to leave their creative brains at the door when they come to work every day. We need to focus not of the act of creation, but the ability to allow people to be creative. To do something with the ideas.  This is about culture.

In western society we seem to treat risk as bad. Indeed even the dictionary defines it as:

The possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger

A factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger; a hazard

source: answers.com

Without a ‘risk of loss’ there is no opportunity of gain. Lets look at how we may feel if we change the definition:

The possibility of winning or being successful

A factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain success or achievement

source: rapidbi.com

The ability to “take a risk” is essential if we want to change the status quo. We need to embrace change. Indeed I would go as far as to say:

Innovation is achieved through creativity AND change preparedness

 

What are the barriers for you taking a chance, daring do take the first step. I love this video – what does it mean for you in the context of innovation and change?

In the Innovation Equation by Byrd & Brown Innovation is defined as:

Innovation = Risk Taking * Innovation

If Risk taking (act of doing something) is the same as change preparedness – then this is indeed a valuable approach to changing the culture in our organizations.

What will you dare to do today?

Innovation in a recession

How do you innovate when budgets are cut, prices of high tech are increasing and you have less people to do more with?

Innovation is about more than new products and technologies – its about ideas – and ideas from your brain and the brains of your people and networks can be free – all you need to do is give permission to be creative harness the ideas that result – some you can use – most you wont be able to… yet.

In her book The Innovation Equation, Jacqueline Byrd looks beyond invention and looks at innovation as a behaviour – something that can add value in all parts of a company – no matter how big or small.

Byrd defines an innovative organisation as one which;

• Encourages its members to operate independently
• Rewards people for being inner-directed and developing their own ideas
• Values the uniqueness and talents of every contributor
• Demonstrates resilience when confronted with setbacks
• Knows how to thrive in ambiguous circumstances
• Fosters an environment in which individuals are values and rewarded for being authentic
• Exhibits self-accepting behaviours “we’re good”

No matter how big or small – no matter how cash rich or poor you are, you can innovate in a recession – indeed it may be the only sustainable competitive advantage you have.

For more information on Byrd’s approach to Innovation through the Creatrix

Brainstorming technique for innovation, creativity and problem solving – a business strategy

Introduction to Brainstorming

 
Brainstorming as an approach or technique can be an effective way of generating many ideas on a specific issue which can then be filtered and reviewed to determine which idea or approach is the most appropriate.

Brainstorming as a technique is most effective with groups of between 8 and 12 people performed in a relaxed environment.

 

History of Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a technique often used by groups, but can be done alone (although this is not as effective) to generate a large number of ideas for the solution of a problem.

The technique was first documented in the late 1930s by Alex F Osborn in his book called Applied Imagination. In this publication Osborn proposed that groups could double their creative output with brainstorming.

While brainstorming has grown over the years to become a popular group problem solving and creativity technique, there has been little evidence of its effectiveness for enhancing either quantity or quality of ideas generated.

Although traditional brainstorming does not necessarily increase the productivity of groups (as measured by the number of ideas generated), it often provides benefits, such as boosting morale, enhancing work enjoyment, and improving team work.

 

Purpose of Brainstorming

Creative group facilitation technique that encourages participation from all group members.

Graphical representation of Brainstorming

 

 

Description of an approach

A typical brainstorming session will require:

• A facilitator
• A suitable brainstorming space – light, plenty of space, natural daylight
• Something to write ideas on, preferably a white-board, flip chart or Brown Paper. 

The responsibilities of the facilitator include:

• Guiding the session,
• Encouraging participation
• Capturing (in writing) the ideas.

Brainstorming works best with a varied group of people. Even in areas involving specialists people from outside of the sector or industry can often bring a fresh idea or approach that inspires the thinking of the experts.

 

Ground Rules for effective brainstorming
In the classical approach to brainstorming there are four basic rules. These rules are designed to reduce social inhibitions among groups members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group:

1. Focus on quantity: It is not the quality or practicality that is important – just sheer number of ideas. It is believed that quantity breeds quality. The greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
2. Withhold criticism: Any judging at this stage inhibits lateral thinking and may inhibit some group members from participation.
3. Welcome unusual ideas: New perspectives are welcomes and assumptions suspended.
4. Combine and improve ideas: This also encourages building on the ideas previously generated. In this case “1+1=3″.

Conducting a brainstorming session

The facilitator leads the brainstorming session and ensures that ground rules are followed. The steps in a typical session are:

1. A warm-up session, to expose novice participants to the criticism-free environment. A simple problem is brainstormed
2. The facilitator presents the problem and gives a further explanation if needed
3. The facilitator asks the brainstorming group for their ideas
4. If no ideas are forthcoming, the facilitator suggests a lead to encourage creativity
5. A nominated person (s) capture the ideas in real time – using the words of the person presenting the idea (to avoid filtering)
6. All participants present their ideas, and the idea collector(s) records them
7. To ensure clarity, participants may elaborate on their ideas
8. When time is up, Everyone takes a break (of at least 15 minutes.
9. The facilitator organizes the ideas based on the topic goal and encourages discussion
10. Ideas are grouped and categorized
11. The whole list is reviewed to ensure that everyone understands the ideas
12. Duplicate ideas and obviously infeasible solutions are removed (or parked for use in another session)
13. The remaining ideas are considered and where possible built upon
14. The group work through the remaining ideas and prioritize possible solutions for implementation
15. The facilitator thanks all participants and gives each a token of appreciation.

 

Some of the techniques and vehicles to which brainstorming can be used:

Classic brainstorming

The group is responsible for focusing its attention on a problem or question for a limited period of time, no longer than 90 minutes. The objective is to generate as many solutions as possible. With the group select the five best ideas, the criteria for judging them and score them on a scale of 1-5. The best idea is the one with the highest score.

The Challenge

The problem is exaggerated or made more difficult than it really is which forces the problem to be addressed from a different perspective and gets the group to think creatively about solutions.

What If?

Each member of the group is asked to pose a minimum of three “what if?” questions about the problem/question/topic. For example, the question is, “How do we reduce employee turnover”, “what if we doubled everyone’s salary?” This technique enables the consideration of hypothetical solutions that are not part of everyday thinking.

Role Playing

Ask colleagues from a different department, other firms or countries how they would solve the problem. An original solution may be developed by viewing the problem from a different professional perspective.

The Wrong Way

Instead of generating ideas or solving problems, the group deliberately tries to generate poor ideas or ways to make the problem worse. For example if trying to improve client retention, ask “What could we do to ensure clients never purchased from us again?” By focusing on poor client service, the focus is on the issues that matter most to the client, which generate ideas that are better positioned to solve the problem.

Metaphors

A metaphor is a word or phrase that symbolizes something other than its literal meaning. An example of using metaphors when brainstorming is, when seeking to energize the maintenance team visualize them as a football team, how would you improve their performance? By applying metaphors, you may gain a fresh perspective on the problem.

Word Associations

Instead of generating specific solutions or ideas, the group simply generates whatever word or phrase that comes to mind. For example, if the group is discussing ways to improve the interior appearance of the main office, they might generate words like: “fabric”, “colour”, “paint”, and “texture”. Later these key phrases can be used to develop action plans.

Risky Options

This brainstorming technique encourages wild and risky approaches to problems. Normally members of the group may be afraid to suggest unusual or risky options because they are overcome by the fear of failure or group criticism. You may even provide a prize for the riskiest option.

The Hunter

Group members play “the hunter” by scanning through newspapers, magazines, literature etc. hunting for random ideas that might have a bearing on the problem they are trying to solve. This technique can be used equally well with small groups and individuals.

Brainstorming and epilepsy – political correctness run amok

In the press some have claimed that the term “Brainstorming” may be derogatory to epileptics. The word ‘brainstorming’ is not offensive to the vast majority of people with epilepsy, according to a survey carried out by the National Society for Epilepsy.

The word has been used since the 1940s to describe the method of problem-solving or generating ideas where all present at a meeting make spontaneous suggestions.In the survey, 93 per cent of people with epilepsy did not find the term derogatory or offensive in any way and many felt that this sort of political correctness singled out people with epilepsy as being easily offended.

Ref http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/node/1078

Alternative words thought-showers, blue-sky thinking, Boardblast

Cut or increase innovation in a recession?

Innovation, is it a burden or opportunity when things are difficult?

This morning I was reading an article in Business Week about the need for organizations to cut back on innovation (article). The article starts with the opening line

“When times get tough, one of the first things we do is think about what we can do without, like cutting latte consumption from five a week to two”

with which I totally agree.  However an assumption in the article drives the reader to believe that INNOVATION = NEW PRODUCT – it does not and cannot.

Byrd & Brown in their book “The Innovation Equation” define the innovation equation to mean INNOVATION=CREATIVITY x RISK TAKING, where creativity and risk taking are behaviours rather than processes. With this approach in mind innovation should be a part of the way organizations equip themselves to cope in difficult times.

True innovation is not limited to product and market development, but to any change the organization faces.

Innovation at Honda

Honda in the UK have had a difficult few months, but rather than lay people off, they have taken the innovative stance of shutting the factory for four months with employees on full pay for two months and then 60% for the remainder, with the commitment to keep all employed when they open the factory again – it would have been so easy just to lay people off as other firms are doing.

Innovation is culture

Innovation in its true sense is a culture, a leadership style not an R&D process. In our organizations we need to develop and review what we do on a regular basis, using the drivers of innovation – Ambiguity, Independance, Uniqueness, Authentic Resilient we can ensure our organizations are in the best position to both survive and be prepared for the resulting growth in the fiture.

believe we need to innovate like we have never done before – not stagnate.

For information on the Creatrix (Byrds approach to innovation) see The Creatrix

Eight Orientations of #Innovation

What Is Your Creativity And Risk-Taking Orientation?

Measuring the creative sense and risk-taking orientation of individuals in organisations helps to explain why one organisation (or team) stagnates and dies, another takes excessive risks and lands in bankruptcy, and yet others are moderately to extremely successful.

As the Creatrix model suggests, your creativity and risk-taking orientation can be plotted on a matrix. The vertical scale designates the degree to which you are generally a low, moderate, or high risk taker. The horizontal scale designates the degree of your creative abilities. The Creatrix Inventory is further divided into eight zones, each representing a creativity/ risk-taking orientation. Although there are shades between the orientations—matters of degree—only the eight “pure” orientations will be described here to provide contrast, illustrations, and clarity.

The four orientations in the corners represent people who rank either extremely high or extremely low on creativity or risk taking. When the extreme types become more socialised, Sustainers (low creativity, low risk taking) may become Modifiers; Challengers (low creativity, high risk taking), Practicalizers; Innovators (high creativity, high risk taking), Synthesizers; and Dreamers (high creativity, low risk taking), Planners.

While the model and interpretations are based on only two variables of personality and behaviour. Nevertheless, they provide a window through which to examine yourself while keeping in mind the many other factors that help to make you (and your organisation) what you are.

 

The Eight Orientations of the Creatrix innovation model described:

Creatrix Innovation model

The Outside (or extremes) Orientations
Challengers	Have the attitude of “do it”-if we do nothing we will lose out Get excited about new ideas-most often to drive home the ideas of others May take on too many ideas and can find it difficult to complete all of them
Sustainers	Usually prefer stability to change Take chances only when necessary Appreciate what has worked in the past. Often feel change is done for its own sake Hold an organisation accountable and true to its mission
Dreamers	Are creative-constantly coming up with new ways to do things Strong on ideas, not strong on how to get them accomplished Can be the creative juice for the organisation, but need to partner with people who can execute the ideas
Innovators	Have a new idea every minute Always think they can figure out how they can make things happen Keep an organisation off balance—not always a good thing Can hit the “Grand Slam”

Inside (or social) Orientations
Practicalizers	Like changes-but not too many all at once Are willing to try something new, but look for the practical Will come up with creative ideas but do not consider this their strength
Modifiers	Add value by making incremental improvements Like to “test the waters” as a first step Don’t take risks unless the benefits outweigh the current state of affairs
Planners	Believe that an idea has merit if it fits within the plan Want information and data before making a decision or taking a risk Will come up with creative ideas within known parameters
Synthesizers	See possibilities in everything Create by putting things together-often unusual combinations that work in new ways Will drive an idea home but not at all costs-are more cautious than the Innovator

 

Related article: Innovation-aim-assess-activate-apply-model

Find out more at www.creatrix.com or www.innovativecapacity.co.uk

Innovation and Invention

The words innovation and invention are often used interchangeably, but is that a help or a hindrance?

One page I love to visit is http://tinyurl.com/577mm2 as this lists lots of stories of creation, innovation and invention.

Jay Walker presents a wonderful piece called: A library of human imagination.

A wonderful way to stimulate your thinking.

Innovation – Creating an organizational wide culture of executive innovation

Executive innovation – creating the culture

Ever heard your people say…

“What we need in this organization is innovation” or “Creativity will give us the edge”.

Executives and leaders often utter these words with little realisation of the difficulties of bringing about a fundamental shift in the behaviour necessary to create an innovation culture across the organization. “We can empower people to bring new ideas, we’ll run some workshops on creativity” if only it were that simple. But alas this Procrustean approach is unlikely to reap rich rewards.

You remember Procrustes of course, the famous innkeeper of Greek mythology? According to legend he was single-minded in his approach to hospitality, he kept an inn on the road to Athens and what distinguished this inn from any other was that it had only one room containing only one bed. Procrustes believed that all travellers who stayed in his hostel should fit in the bed, and this is where he was single-minded, those who were too tall swiftly had their feet cut off whilst those too short were stretched to fit. An unfortunate side effect of this unwarranted attention to detail meant that by the time he had executed the necessary adjustments many of his guests were, well, dead!

A one size fits all approach denies the reality that people are different and in developing an approach towards encouraging innovation these differences need to be surfaced and reconciled.

One organization has devised a more enlightened strategy. Recognising early on that building a culture of innovation requires some foresight and hard graft in building a critical mass of people who understand their own, and others innovation style they targeted successive intakes of graduates to build new ways of thinking and acting to realise their innovation potential.

Around 40 graduates a year participate in the graduate development programme, after successfully completing an assessment centre. Critical reasoning tests are part of the selection process but interestingly, so too is a creative thinking test that explores, fluency – the number of ideas generated, originality – how original are the ideas and lateral flexibility – how diverse these ideas are. Candidates are chosen according to their strengths either in critical reasoning or creativity – some even have strengths in both domains! Importantly, whatever their strengths each have a vital role in the innovation process.

At the very first module of their development programme they are introduced to two important topics – learning and innovation. Each individual learns about their own preferences for learning which involves a combination of thinking and action (after Kolb) and understand the strengths and limitations of each preference. Prior to the module they are asked to complete a Creatrix™ inventory and when attending are introduced to the underlying concepts that describe innovation capacity – creativity and risk taking. The blend of these constructs gives unique profiles that describe typical approaches and attitudes towards the behaviours associated with innovation. Through an understanding of their own approach and strengths towards innovation the groups develop awareness of the need to balance innovation teams, too many innovators and a surfeit of ideas but no action, too many sustainers and no ideas will see the light of day. Appreciating their own and others styles helps in several ways; they recognise their own unique contribution to the innovation process; they identify potential barriers and possible levers that can help navigate from ideas to action; they develop a language for describing and understanding innovation; they identify ways of making things happen by circumventing the organisational “permafrost” that kill possibilities prematurely; they develop individual action plans for switching on their own capacity for innovation; and build a network across the organisation to act on those thorny cross functional problems.

This fresh approach of seeding the organization with new entrants untainted by the inevitable cynicism seasoned campaigners in the organisation is beginning to bear fruit. Hungry to make a mark many of the graduates are pushing new ideas and making a succession of small wins from streamlining processes to developing new products – and what’s more getting the support of the person at the top. As this population grows with each successive stream a critical mass of young innovators is being formed who want to push the boundaries even further.

For this group in the organisation, change and innovation is not a threat, they feel empowered to drive it and, for them, it is the opportunity for more learning.

With innovation, as in other aspects of life, diversity brings real advantages, a concept that was lost on poor Procrustes.

Increasingly the concept of executive innovation is on the corporate agenda, but is it just another fad? No not if used appropriately and owned at the top. When the executives in an organization “walk the talk” and work pro-actively to create a culture of innovation, rather than the typical attitude of creating an “innovation team”. Innovation needs to permeate throughout the fabric of the organization…top through to customer facing people. The behavioural approach of the Creatrix model is a powerful way of starting the journey of innovation in your company.

By Mike Morrison & Vince Whittle © 2004-2008

Executive Innovation the key to success?

Is Executive Innovation the key to success?
The world economy is changing… are we reacting fast enough?
For many executives innovation is just not happening fast enough according to recent articles and research from Boston Consulting Group’s annual study on innovation.

Many organisations know that first in order to survive and then to grow they need to innovate. In recent years the focus of innovation has been on creativity and the innovative process, but the lack of results show that this is only half the picture.

Background to executive innovation

In the 1960s and 70s Dr Richard Byrd developed some research which led to the publication of a model he originally called the C&RT or creativity and risk taking (1986). This model was adopted by the Pfeiffer publications company as a key part of a methodology they called Applied Strategic Planning. They realised that for successful strategy, risk and innovation as behaviour (rather than a process) was fundamental. In the 1990s Byrd’s daughter, Dr Jacqueline Byrd further refined and developed the C&RT and used the technology available on the web to make the Creatrix model more robust and provide the ability to delve deeper to ensure any development activity resulted in effective behaviour change.

Innovation everywhere but little progress

Many organisations have innovation departments, functions or teams and yet little progress is actually being made in terms of productivity, cost saving or market share. Certainly organisations are developing new and innovative products, but as technologies collide and merge and economies tighten, the consumer buys less. For example the markets or phones, music players, cameras and GPS systems are merging fast – where there used to be four markets increasingly there is one.

Innovation needs to be at all levels and in all elements within an organisation to be effective. In the 1990s benchmarking processes to identify the most effective way of working was everywhere, not organisations need to innovate internally to deliver best value in all that they do, not just product development. This is where entrepreneurial or executive innovation leads the way.

The fish rots from the head

Is the old saying, but innovation grows from the head. When introduces from the top as part of an organisations culture innovation can really make a difference. The key is the culture of the organisation, effective culture change starts from the CEO or COO.

Using tools like the Creatrix, executive or entrepreneurial innovation can be easily developed and nurtured, then when executives see the results they will soon want the whole organisation to behave this way too.

Innovation assessment

The Creatrix starts as a personal profile, with each individual involved in the change process undertaking a simple online inventory. The results of this single profile show the individual on the Creatrix grid, a combination of the individuals risk taking assessment and creativity assessment. In addition the individual gets an output showing the seven drivers and their respective strengths.

Collectively all the individuals involved in the team or organisation are plotted on one matrix or grid providing an overall innovation assessment.

This enables the executive team to review the current position of innovative behaviours and plan where is appropriate (there is no right or wrong profile – just more or less effective at that point in time). Then using the language of the Creatrix it is straightforward to develop a change based programme using the (now) common language to inspire and motivate appropriate change.

Dan Coughlin said

“Apply the same process you do at work by asking the following questions:

1. What does this individual or the members of this group want to achieve?

2. What is keeping them from achieving their objectives?

3. What can I provide or remove that would increase their chances of success?

4. How can I combine my answers to question three in a way that will add the most value to them?

5. Stop writing and move into action!

Mother Theresa was a classic example of this behaviour. She identified opportunities to add value and moved into action. We can do the same over and over again.“

Identifying opportunities and taking action are the two critical elements, simple, and yet many organisations still have barriers in place. Some of these barriers are obvious, many are invisible and should not exist… but they do

For innovation to be commonplace in our organisations we must stop looking at innovation as a process and start to look at it as a culture or set of behaviours.

Product innovation is one thing – executive innovation is quite another.