Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This article explores five factors that can influence creative thinking: namely Judgement:
Freewheeling: Association: Stimulation and Expression.
These factors are used to develop a framework in order to categorize, compare and
contrast different creative problem-solving techniques.
Introduction
According to Carnall (1995), managers face
complex and challenging pressures and
opportunities. They must ensure the efficient
use of resources and find ways of guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the
organizations for which they work. Planning
and implementing change is therefore one of
the main challenges facing managers today
(Dyer, 1997; Goodstein, 1997).
Organizational change can be a demanding and difficult process that requires both
adaptation and effort (McDonald, 2000).
It includes effective planning and implementation as well as imaginative thinking
and creative solutions. In addition, change
management also encompasses the need to
ensure that all those who are affected by
the change are involved in the process (Jick,
1993; Coetsee, 1999).
* Correspondence to: Dr Elspeth McFadzean, Associate
Faculty, Henley Management College, Greenlands,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 3AU, UK.
E-mail: elspethm@henleymc.ac.uk
Change management
encompasses the need
to ensure that all those
who are affected by
change are involved in
the process
268
Elspeth McFadzean
269
Judgement
Researchers have found that interactive
groups are less effective than nominal groups
at producing novel ideas (Taylor et al., 1958;
Lamm and Trommsdorff, 1973; Madsen and
Finger, 1978; Fern, 1982; Hill, 1982). A nominal group comprises individuals who generate ideas alone before pooling their results
with the rest of the group (Mongeau and
Morr, 1999). Diehl and Stroebe (1987) and
Nunamaker et al. (1991) suggest that one
reason for this discrepancy is what is termed
process losses. These are actions undertaken by the group participants that impair
the output of the group. They include, for
example, evaluation apprehension, production blocking and participant dominance.
Evaluation apprehension occurs when members withhold suggestions because they are
frightened of negative criticism (Diehl and
Stroebe, 1987). In an effort to reduce evaluation apprehension many idea-generation
techniques suspend evaluation until after
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
the idea-development phase has been concluded (Osborn, 1957). Inappropriate judgement or criticism can severely disrupt the
free flow of ideas, thus reducing the number of unique and novel ideas generated
(VanGundy, 1988). The evaluation of ideas
should always be undertaken later in the
problem-solving process, when idea generation has been completed and the number
of ideas need to be reduced (Johnson, 1955;
Mintzberg et al., 1976; VanGundy, 1992).
Group leaders and facilitators must therefore take steps to reduce evaluation apprehension among the group members. This
can be achieved by enforcing the nocriticism rule (Mongeau and Morr, 1999;
Osborn, 1957), utilizing anonymous creative
problem-solving techniques (Aiken et al.,
1997; McFadzean, 1999a) or using a group
support system (Dennis and Valacich, 1993;
Nunamaker et al., 1991). For instance, Brainwriting is a useful creative problem-solving
technique because individuals can write their
ideas down on a piece of paper, which
preserves a degree of anonymity, thus reducing evaluation apprehension (McFadzean,
1998b). In addition, this technique is beneficial because the participants do not
need to wait to speak if someone else
is already talking and all their ideas are
recorded (Aiken et al., 1997, McFadzean,
1996). Group support systems use the same
principle of anonymity to reduce evaluation
apprehension.
Freewheeling
Freewheeling encourages group members to
develop as many ideas as possible. An idea
that may seem impractical may contain a
germ of a great solution. In addition, Osborn
(1957) suggests that the quantity of ideas
will ultimately yield quality. In other words,
the more ideas generated, the more likely it is
that the group will produce some good ones.
For example, The Royal Dutch/Shell Group
encourages employees to pitch ideas over
e-mail (Stepanek and Weber, 1999). Every
week, six groups of six participants meet at
the Exploration & Production Divisions in
Strategic Change, August 2001
270
Elspeth McFadzean
Association
A process facilitator must encourage group
members to combine and improve their
ideas. The participants can then build on
previous ideas called piggybacking or free
association and look for ways of combining two or more ideas to generate a third
idea not thought of previously.
Free association encourages the stimulation of ideas but it tends to rely on the
group members past experiences or the
immediate physical or social environment
(VanGundy, 1988). As a result, participants
tend to build on and further develop existing
ideas but do not necessarily change them significantly (McFadzean, 1999a). Forced association, however, can encourage group members to generate more novel and imaginative
ideas by coercing two or more elements
together. These elements may or may not
be related to one another or to the problem (McFadzean, 1999b). VanGundy (1988,
p. 75) states that:
As a general guideline, elements that are
related to each other and to the problem
will be more likely to produce practical
ideas than more unrelated elements.
However, the ideas produced by using
related elements are likely to be more
mundane and less unique than ideas
produced with unrelated elements.
McFadzean (1996), Garfield et al. (1997)
and Bouchard (1972) found that groups
who used unrelated stimuli to inspire creativity produced more unique and novel
ideas than groups who only used related
stimuli. For example, scientists have been
Strategic Change, August 2001
Stimulation
Creativity also consists of another important
element: perception. Perception helps us to
develop a view of the world. This picture
or paradigm explains the world to us and
helps us predict and anticipate behaviour.
However, when a person views the world
from one paradigm, it can be very difficult to
imagine it from another. According to Barker
(1992, p. 37):
A paradigm in a sense tells you that
there is a game, what the game is, and
how to play it successfully. The idea of a
game is a very appropriate metaphor for
paradigms because it reflects the need for
borders and directions on how to perform
correctly. A paradigm tells you how to
play the game according to the rules.
Perception is necessary, therefore, because
it helps people to develop sequenced patterns, without which it would be difficult
271
272
Elspeth McFadzean
Expression
A metaphor that is often used when discussing creativity is the brains duality. Our
Strategic Change, August 2001
273
Hewlett-Packard are
using visual aids to
turn the traditional
logic of business
meetings upside-down
274
Elspeth McFadzean
Expression
Stimulation
Ideas
Freewheeling
Association
Suspend Judgement
Figure 1. A model of creativity.
implemented. This free flow of ideas, however, can be likened to railway tracks. A team
member suggests one idea. This idea sparks
off another idea that is similar to the first
and so on. This is comparable to laying one
piece of track, then joining on another and
another and another. Occasionally there will
be spur lines or new, separate tracks created. Streams and rivers flowing down a hill
illustrate the same concept. The ideas tend
to flow in ruts and form relatively linear
patterns. This occurs because each idea acts
as a stimulus for subsequent ideas and each
of these ideas is related to the problem itself
(see Figure 2). Thus, these related stimuli
do not force the user to change his or her
perception of the situation. Likewise, verbal
or written expression does not encourage
the participants to reframe their ideas either.
Consequently, brainstorming and brainwriting do not have the relevant factors to force
group members to view the problem or situation from a different angle. Thus, these
techniques tend to preserve the paradigm.
There are a number of techniques that
do encourage reframing. These are called
paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking
techniques.
Paradigm-stretching techniques
There are many different techniques that
can encourage participants to stretch their
Strategic Change, August 2001
275
Problem
Paradigm
Preserving
Technique
Related
Stimuli
Free Association
Verbal/Written Expression
Paradigm
Preserving Ideas
276
Elspeth McFadzean
Problem
Paradigm
Stretching
Technique
Unrelated
Free Association
Stimuli Verbal/Written Expression
Ideas
277
278
Elspeth McFadzean
Paradigm
Breaking
Technique
Problem
Unrelated
Stimuli
Free Association
Multiple Expression
Ideas
members by using unusual forms of expression and unrelated stimuli. New ideas are
developed, which can then be linked back
to the problem. These can then be developed further in order to construct potential
solutions (see Figure 4).
Practical implications
There are therefore three different categories
of creative problem solving techniques.
The first, which includes, brainstorming
and brainwriting, utilizes verbal or written
expression, free association and related stimuli. Consequently, there is no provocation
or stimulation that forces the participants
to view the problem or situation from a
different perspective. In other words, these
techniques tend to preserve the participants
existing paradigm. Object stimulation, on
the other hand, utilizes forced association
and unrelated stimuli as well as written
or verbal expression. Thus, by using different objects, participants are encouraged
to look at the problem from a number
of different perspectives. Object stimulation therefore, assists participants to stretch
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
their current paradigms. Finally, rich pictures utilizes forced association, unrelated
stimuli and a more unusual method of
expression, that of drawing. This helps participants to completely smash their present
paradigms. Consequently, creative problem
solving techniques can be placed on a continuum ranging from paradigm preserving
techniques to paradigm breaking techniques
(see Figure 5).
Thus, the creativity continuum presents a
number of implications for facilitators and
managers. These are:
(1) Creative
stimulation McFadzean
(1996) and Garfield et al. (1997) found
that techniques such as object stimulation encouraged participants to generate many more novel, as well as
good quality, ideas than techniques such
as brainstorming and brainwriting. In
other words, paradigm-stretching and
paradigm-breaking techniques encourage group members to produce more
creative ideas because they force them
to view the problem or situation from
different perspectives.
Strategic Change, August 2001
279
Problem Boundaries
PARADIGM
STRETCHING
PARADIGM
BREAKING
Unchanged
Stretched
Broken
Suspend until
appropriate time
Freewheeling
Encourage
Encourage
Encourage
Association of
Information
Free Association
Stimuli
Related Stimuli
Unrelated Stimuli
Expression
Verbal/Written
Verbal/Written
Verbal/Written/Role-Playing/
Drawing/Visioning
Use of Imagination
Not necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Potential Apprehension
Low
Medium
High
Reduction in
Cognitive Inertia
Low
Medium
High
Group Experience
Low
Medium
High
Judgement
Creative Stimulation
Figure 5. The creativity continuum. Reprinted by permission, Elspeth McFadzean, Creativity in MS/OR:
Choosing the Appropriate Technique, Interfaces, Vol. 29 No. 5, SeptemberOctober 1999, Copyright (1999).
The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, 901 Elkridge Landing Road, Suite 400,
Linthicum, MD21090, USA.
280
Elspeth McFadzean
Asking participants to use imagination and unfamiliar forms of expression can make them feel uncomfortable, and therefore such techniques
can be ineffective and may cause
animosity within the group. It is
therefore vital that only cohesive,
experienced groups, whose members
have high levels of trust and commitment to each other, should use these
techniques.
Thus, less experienced groups are happy
to use paradigm preserving techniques
because these techniques are familiar
and comfortable. Groups which have
been working together for longer periods, or which are more open and honest
and like to work with more diverse and
unusual techniques may find paradigmstretching and paradigm-breaking techniques more beneficial.
(5) Process congruence according to
McFadzean et al. (1999), process congruence is very important especially if
the facilitator wishes to use paradigmstretching and paradigm-breaking techniques. If, for example, the facilitator
asks a group to undertake a technique
that the participants feel uncomfortable
with then at best, the procedure will tend
to be less effective and at worst, some
group members will refuse to participate
(McFadzean, 1996). This will therefore
result in a dysfunctional group and an
unproductive process.
(6) Ground rules it is very important to
develop ground rules with the group
and to display them at all times. For
example, Hicks (1991, p. 50) presents
a number of ground rules for creative
thinking. These are:
(7) Training in creative problem solving this can not only help to show the
value of the different types of creative
problem solving techniques but training can also help participants to develop
appropriate and positive behaviours
while using these techniques.
Summary
This paper has discussed three different categories of creative problem-solving
techniques, namely paradigm preserving,
paradigm stretching and paradigm breaking. In order to encourage participants to
generate more creative ideas, the facilitator can choose to utilize techniques that
use unrelated stimuli, forced association and
more unusual modes of expression. However, care must be taken with the planning
and support of these techniques. Although
paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking
techniques can enhance creative stimulation
and reduce cognitive inertia, they can also
increase participant apprehension. Thus,
facilitators must ensure that process congruence has been gained and that he or she
will support the group members and ensure
that positive behaviour is displayed. This can
Strategic Change, August 2001
Biographical note
Dr Elspeth McFadzean is an associate member of faculty at Henley Management College.
Her research focuses on creative problem
solving, teambuilding, facilitation and group
support systems. She has published numerous papers and is the author of the book The
Creativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for
Facilitating Problem Solving Sessions.
References
Aiken M, Sloan H, Paolillo J, Motiwalla L. 1997.
The use of two electronic idea generation
techniques in strategy planning meetings.
Journal of Business Communication 34(4):
370382.
Amabile TM. 1983a. The Social Psychology of
Creativity. Springer-Verlag: New York.
Amabile TM. 1983b. The social psychology of
creativity: a componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
45: 357376.
Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and
innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 10: 123167.
Anderson JV. 1992. Weirder than fiction: the
reality and myths of creativity. Academy of
Management Executive 6(4): 4047.
Barker JA. 1992. Future Edge. William Morrow &
Co: New York.
Bouchard TJ. 1972. A comparison of two group
brainstorming procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology 56: 418421.
Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF. 1996. Team theory
of group productivity and its application to
development and testing of group support
systems. CMI Working Paper Series WPS-96-1:
University of Arizona.
Bruce V, Young A. 1998. In the Eye of the
Beholder: The Science of Face Perception.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Busse T, Mansfield R. 1980. Theories of the
creative process: a review and a perspective.
Journal of Creative Behavior 14: 7787.
Carnall C. 1995. Managing Change in Organizations (2nd edition). Prentice Hall: London.
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
281
Coetsee L. 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly 23(2):
204222.
Cormier KA. 1999. Netstorming: Website development strategies. Strategic Finance 80(11):
6467.
Couger JD. 1995. Creative Problem Solving and
Opportunity Finding. Boyd & Fraser Publishing
Co: Danvers, MA.
Couger JD, Flynn P, Hellyer D. 1994. Enhancing
the creativity of reengineering. Information
Systems Management. 11(2): 2429.
De Bono E. 1991. I am Right You are Wrong.
Penguin Books: London.
De Bono E. 1992. Serious Creativity: Using the
Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas.
Harper Collins: London.
Dennis AR, Heminger AR, Nunamaker JF, Vogel
DR. 1990. Bringing automated support to large
groups: the burr-brown experience. Information and Management 18(3): 111121.
Dennis AR, Valacich JS. 1993. Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 531537.
Diehl M, Stroebe W. 1987. Productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: toward the solution of
a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 53(3): 497509.
Dyer WG. 1997. Organization development as
I have experienced it. Organizational Development Journal 15(2): 2734.
Edwards B. 1993. Drawing on the Right Side of
the Brain: How to Unlock Your Hidden Artistic
Talent (new revised edition). Harper Collins:
London.
Evans JR. 1993. Creativity in MS/OR: overcoming barriers to creativity. Interfaces 23(6):
101106.
Fern EF. 1982. The use of focus groups for
idea generation: the effects of group size,
acquaintanceship, and moderator on response
quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing
Research 19(1): 113.
Finke RA. 1990. Creative Imagery: Discoveries
and Inventions in Visualization. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Finke RA. 1996. Imagery, creativity, and emergent
structure. Consciousness and Cognition 5(3):
381393.
Ford CM. 1996. A theory of individual creative
action in multiple social domains. Academy of
Management Review 21(4): 11121142.
Garfield M, Satzinger J, Taylor N, Dennis A 1997.
The creative road: the impact of the person,
Strategic Change, August 2001
282
process and feedback on idea generation.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference
of the AIS, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Goodstein LD. 1997. Everything I really need
to know: Im still learning. Organization
Development Journal 15(2): 3542.
Hargadon A, Sutton RI. 2000. Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review 78(3):
157166.
Hemsath D, Yerkes L. 1997. 301 Ways to Have
Fun at Work. Barrett-Koehler: San Francisco.
Hicks MJ. 1991. Problem Solving in Business
and Management: Hard, Soft and Creative
Approaches. Chapman & Hall: London.
Hill GW. 1982. Group versus individual performance: are N+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin 91(2): 517539.
Jick TD. 1993. Managing Change: Cases and
Concepts. Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Johnson DM. 1955. The Psychology of Thought
Harper & Row: New York.
Kruczek T. 1997. Making residents feel at home
in the nursing home. Nursing Homes 46(2):
3133.
Lamm H, Trommsdorff G. 1973. Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): a
review. European Journal of Social Psychology
3: 361387.
LeBoeuf M. 1980. Creative Thinking. Piatkus:
London.
Madsen DB, Finger JR. 1978. Comparison of a
written feedback procedure, group brainstorming and individual brainstorming. Journal of
Applied Psychology 63(1): 120123.
McDonald MJ. 2000. Managing rapid change:
from theory to practice: an invited article.
Southern Business Review 25(2): 2833.
McFadzean ES. 1996. New ways of thinking: an
evaluation of k-groupware and creative problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, Henley Management College/Brunel University: Henley-onThames, Oxon.
McFadzean ES. 1998a. Enhancing creative thinking within organizations. Management Decision 36(5): 309315.
McFadzean ES. 1998b. The Creativity Tool Box: A
Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative Problem Solving Sessions. TeamTalk Consulting Ltd:
Milton Keynes.
McFadzean ES. 1998c. The creativity continuum:
towards a classification of creative problem
solving techniques. Creativity and Innovation
Management 7(3): 131139.
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Elspeth McFadzean
McFadzean ES. 1998d. The attention wheel:
how to manage creative teams. Working
Paper No. 9823, Henley Management College:
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.
McFadzean ES. 1999a. Creativity in MS/OR: choosing the appropriate technique. Interfaces
29(5): 110122.
McFadzean ES. 1999b. Encouraging creative
thinking. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 20(7): 374388.
McFadzean ES, Somersall L, Coker A. 1998. Creative problem solving using unrelated stimuli.
Journal of General Management 24(2): 3650.
McFadzean ES, Somersall L, Coker A. 1999. A
framework for facilitating group processes.
Strategic Change 8(7): 421431.
Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Th
eor
et A. 1976.
The structure of unstructured decision
processes. Administrative Science Quarterly
21(2): 246275.
Mongeau PA, Morr MC. 1999. Reconsidering
brainstorming. Group Facilitation: A Research
and Applications Journal 1(1): 1421.
Moore JS, Garg A. 1997. Participatory ergonomics
in a red meat packing plant part II: case studies. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal 58(7): 498508.
Mumford M, Gustafson S. 1988. Creativity syndrome: integration application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin 103: 2743.
Nunamaker JF, Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Vogel DR,
George JF. 1991. Electronic meeting systems to
support group work. Communications of the
ACM 34(7): 4061.
Osborn AF. 1957. Applied Imagination (revised
edition). Scribner: New York.
Rodier MM. 2000. A quest for best practices. IIE
Solutions 32(2): 3639.
Slater J, Dolven B. 2000. Picture this. Far Eastern
Economic Review 163(23): 65.
Stepanek M, Weber J. 1999. Using the net for
brainstorming: smart companies are exploiting
cyberspace to spark innovation. Business Week
3659: EB55-EB59.
Suler JR. 1980. Primary process thinking and creativity. Psychological Bulletin 88: 144165.
Sutton RI, Hargadon A. 1996. Brainstorming
groups in context: effectiveness in a product
design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly
41: 685718.
Taylor DW, Berry PC, Block CH. 1958. Does
group participation when using brainstorming
facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly 3: 2347.
Strategic Change, August 2001
283
Von Oech R. 1983. A Whack on the Side of the
Head. Thorsons: London.
Woodman R, Schoenfeldt R. 1990. An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of
Creative Behavior 24: 279290.