Companies are required to display a creative outlook in their value offerings, advertising, packaging and delivering. Management of companies should show initiative and be willing to do new things and face new challenges in novel ways to get creative. Senior management in leading companies needs to determine the value of creativity then in their organization and see how it can be best managed. Holt (2002), states that “Although creativity can be viewed through a lens of theory (achievement / necessity / chance / genius / intelligence / psychoanalysis), it is more a dynamic, disorderly process”.
If we are to assume Halt’s statement to be true then companies face a very tough challenge – creativity is dynamic, and the process is disorderly. We can infer that even with careful planning and laying down alternatives for every contingency the creative process will throw up unexpected situations and these would need to be dealt with on spur of the moment thought and not careful planning. These unexpected occurrences can be in the form of unforeseen hurdles or lucky breaks. In either case, companies need to display alacrity and ensure that they do not squander the opportunity or get stuck in the hurdles.
Let us define creativity first to see what companies should focus on when they talk about creativity. Definition of creativity: Creativity is, as many books and Journals announce, a vexed topic. ‘The concept of creativity has traditionally proved an elusive one to pin down’ (Anna Craft, 2001); it is ‘a mystery, not to say a paradox’ (Margaret Boded, 2004); and the title of H. B Apparatus’s influential essay of 1999, ‘Confusion, Lack of consensus, and the Definition of Creativity as a Construct’, speaks about the difficulties theorists face in trying to define and delimit this concept.
Despite the plethora of discussion about inspiration and centuries of research into creativity- the word is used as though its meaning ere self-evident. In Robert E. Franker’s ‘Human Motivation’ creativity is defined ‘as the tendency to recognize or create ideas, options, or possibilities that may be useful in decoding problems, establishing communication with others, and amusing ourselves and others’. He underlines three reasons as to why people are motivated to be creative: 1. The inherent need for diverse, novel, and complex stimulation. 2.
The basic need to communicate varied ideas and values. 3. The need to solve problems. Thus, the definition of creativity has chaos and disorder embedded in it. Whether he base nature of creativity is dynamic or not and whether managers can introduce means to control the creative process needs to critically analyzed. Genius, Chance and Necessity theories of creativity are used to scrutinize Halt’s claims. Comparative theories Necessity and Creativity The theory states “Necessity fosters creativity. ” We create what we need; unless we feel the pressure of needs, we are not likely to be creative.
The story of the thirsty crow who collected pebbles and threw them into the Jar so that the level of water rises to reach the bird’s lips is well-known. Mere necessity would not help us much f we are not stimulated by the power of thought. Animals also have their own set of needs but because they lack the power of thinking and ingenuity, they cannot be creative. They act on instinct and tend to follow a trodden track. Hence, the right way to view this is that necessity is the mother of creativity but only when it is accompanied by the power of thinking. Necessity gives the first impulse; the rest is the work of the intellect.
Man is not Just the slave of his needs, but man himself is their creator as well. The mere fulfillment of needs can never be the only motive for exercising man’s faculties for creativity. However, once the basic needs are met, the definition of necessity is different from different people. In a management context, if managers use the necessity theory, they can promote creativity by setting goals and targets and backing them with rewards and recognition. This can create the necessity, but the way in which the necessity will be viewed will defer from person and person.
Hence, Halt’s statement comes into the picture, and the creative process becomes dynamic and goes out of control for the management. Creativity and Genius Historically, the analysis of creativity started with the study of genius. Sir Francis Gallon (1822-1911) was the first who used scientific methods for the study of genius and creativity. In his study of Genius, Gallon (1869, 1874) treated genius in terms of rational forces and assumed that people’s intellectual activity is dependent on biological processes, the potency of which are genetically determined.
Gallon’s thesis that talks about heredity being the major factor underlying the determination of genius was not supported by the later studies (e. G. Simonton 1984), but his systematic method of studying distinguished figures and the investigation of the relations of creativity inspired further research in this field. Successive study of genius and creativity (Albert, 1983; Simonton, 1984, 1999; Davidson, 1986; Bloom, 2002) established that there exists a strong correlation between creative potential and genius.
They show that the genius need not be hereditary but has to be present for a person to be creative. The studies do not specify what the definition of genius is and how companies can go about finding with the genius. The phenomenon of genius itself is random in people and makes the creative output achievement from these people also random. The degree of randomness displayed by the assumptions of this theory shows the chaotic environment in which companies have to operate as they have to consider market dynamics, geopolitical risks and then focus on individual ability to identify the genius of people.
This in turn highlights the dynamic aspect of creativity thereby supporting Halt’s statement. Chance and creativity Abraham Tantalum described a dynamic interplay between chance and creativity. According to Tantalum, chance is one of the five factors that combine to influence the development of potential. There is a static element of chance, which includes things the individual cannot control, such as the accidents of genetic inheritance. There is also a dynamic element of chance, which includes things the individual can influence.
Although the randomness of motion may be inefficient, it can lead to “lucky” breaks thereby highlighting the dynamic and disorderly nature of creativity as mentioned by Holt. Recent developments in the emerging science of complexity add new dimensions to the influence of chance on creative adaptation. Complexity theory involves interdisciplinary studies of complex adaptive systems. Of most interest to implement theorists such as Stuart Kauffman and Doyen Farmer are the ways in which order spontaneously emerges from apparent chaos.
Complex adaptive systems, such as human minds, can be strongly influenced by minor environmental fluctuations, yet these systems seem to settle into patterns of order that enable them to adapt and thrive in changing conditions. Whether people are blessed with socioeconomic status or earn more opportunities through activity, preparation of mind or development of useful perspectives and pattern-finding abilities, the element of chance can affect creative adaptation. Those who are more fortunate are more likely to adapt successfully to problems, or to force adaptations in the environment that better suit their needs and desires.
Chance by its definition is unpredictable. This thus implies that the process of creativity is not an analytical, orderly approach that is in direct agreement with Halt’s statement. Observations The three theories have shown creativity to be chaotic in nature. The dynamic nature or unpredictability can exist in the recognition of situation (necessity theory), the enabling trait of a person to be creative (genius theory) or the changing ramset’s of the situation itself (chance theory).
In all the scenarios, there are chaotic elements in play that make a creative process dynamic. The theories explain how creativity can be viewed or what it can be attributed to but they also show that no matter what view one takes about creativity, there is always some uncertainty or an inexplicable part of the process that will always make it chaotic. Conclusion: Creativity is a phenomenon governed by both external and internal constraints. The historical state of the problem domain and the role of the unpredictable concern the external ones.
How prepared and more importantly, how “favored” (endowed) a mind is a concern the internal ones. Trial-and-error, induction and analogy are some heuristic methods that one can attempt, but the best strategy that should be adopted to maximize the likelihood of creativity is to maximize preparation. Owing to the essential rule of unexpectedness and unpredictability in its defining conditions creativity will always remain mysterious. Preparation can help provide a positive setting for a chance. Moreover, it is unlikely that chance or freedom can be tutored.
Apart from receptiveness and problem-specific preparation, given one’s physical, mental and experiential resources, one’s only remaining strategy is to be prepared, to explore other potential creative problem domains if a sufficiently zealous and tolerant effort ends in fruitless, preservative loops: Trial-and-error sampling(prepared) may be needed for discovering one’s creative calling (if it exists), guided, perhaps, by the native or acquired precepts of one’s creative Judgment, but ever dependent for success on the whims of chance.
We viewed creativity through three different lenses of theory namely necessity, chance and genius and thus conclude that creativity is more a dynamic, disorderly process. CREATIVE SUCCESS IS THE RESULT NOT OF LUCK BUT OF PREPAREDNESS – The Tests View Martin Bernhard and Marc Tarpapering, who founded Tests in 2003, will agree with the topic and would claim that Creative Success is indeed the result of preparedness. They recognize that there is an element of luck involved but being aware of this fact Teasel’s experience so far shows that the factor of luck can be reduced to a great extent by preparation.
Bernhard and Tarpapering started Tests out of their love for sports cars, and they also wanted to save the environment and bring about the post-oil age. The start-up’s AOL was to build automobiles powered by electricity, not gasoline. It was not a brand new idea-?electric cars were common in the auto industry’s early years-?but it was at the right time, as advances in lithium-ion technology were Just beginning to enable batteries that were powerful as well as light enough to build cars that could rival the performance of gas-powered models.
Our company started off with an aim of building an entire car all by itself but the creators realized that the financial and human costs were way too much for this, and ultimately they decided to build on top of, and within, an existing car the “Lotus Elise”. Several other changes and refinements were made during the course of our development. Experimentation, ambiguity and rethinking has been an integral part of Tests since its inception. Our company was the result of dynamic thought shown by our creators. As Holt shows us, creativity is dynamic.
Teasel’s origin confirms that the creative process is disorderly, and creators need to display a dynamic thought process to make things work. However, the dynamic thought comes by careful planning and deep study of the field so that creators have the right send of mental and physical tools to deal with he disorderly elements. The flagship sports car that Tests launched which was a game changer in many different ways is Tests Roadster. Roadster is the result of careful planning and research and contribution of experts and was launched by Tests for consumer use five years after the project was initiated.
Roadster saw several changes and modifications to its originally conceptualized design. From getting its final shape by taking cue from a design submission competition to several changes in its internals and various external modifications Roadster was a result of extremely hard work and enunciate shown by its makers. Work on Roadster had continued for about three years before it was unveiled to the world in 2006 and its design, and the concept was appreciated by all. The success of Roadster highlights that creative success is indeed a result of preparedness.
In mid-2012, Tests launched Model S, the world’s first premium electric sedan. The makers made several changes to the design of the originally conceived Model S based on consumer feedback thus highlighting the dynamic nature of creative output. Model S was named Motor Trend’s 2013 Car of the Year and has redefined the very concept of a four-door car. At present, with more than 50,000 vehicles on the road worldwide, Tests is preparing to launch their latest design, Model X, a crossover vehicle that enters volume production in 2015.
Featuring exhilarating acceleration, falcon wing doors, and room for three rows of seating, Model X defies categorization. Barely ten years old old, Tests is already gigantic and adored. Its market capitalization hovers around $28 billion. Morgan Stanley refers Tests as “the world’s most important car company,” Tests has always been a company that has been prepared. We do recognize the element of luck, but we believe in preparedness. Holt suggested that the creative process is dynamic and disorderly, and our experience shows the same.
However, we have found that through preparation and development of a strong creative team we can reduce the chaos associated with creativity and thus increase the chances of creating opportunities for success. Analyzing Halt’s statement gives us a greater motivation to increase the level of preparedness in the company. By hiring and managing talent which has the requisite knowledge and acumen to be an active part of the creative process and by adopting strong communication and feedback systems we can ensure that we reduce the element of luck in our creative process.
Roadster is the perfect example of how creative success can be achieved by diligent preparation. The electric car market is expected to become nearly threefold by 2020. This has induced non-automobile players such as Apple to enter this market. Such an opportunity calls for a greater level of creative output from us so that we maintain our top spot in the market. We can not leave our creative output to luck. We have believed in preparedness and hall continue to do so and also continue to reshape the automobile industry.