INTRODUCTION
I agree that even in small moments of creativity arid creative problem-solving can imply better results. There is an ample need to understand and analyze the process of creativity among people in applying the needed information that helps integrate the importance of creativity within the development of the problem solving skills amicably. Moreover, creativity and problem solving (CPS) skills cultivate whole brain thinking that helps in their search for ideas for efficiencies in procedures and coping with changes in the environment. Thus, nurturing creativity in individuals can come up with creative ideas as needed. Many people think creativity is soft and fuzzy then, used as an excuse for wasting time and believe creativity is not practical since it only involves with fine arts such as music and dance. Creativity needs to be encouraged within the appropriate intelligence in order for the individuals and groups to be creative and intelligent within to act freely and right in the views of other people. Creativity is arguably the most important element in achieving success in life goals as it is argued that, to encourage and enhance creativity people involved in every aspect should address the effects of fear of taking risks and criticism.
The Importance of Creativity
Creativity is at once the least scientific aspect of advertising and the most important (Reid, King and DeLorme, 1998). To be successful, it must have impact, quality, style and relevance. Ideas must be new, unique, and relevant to the product and to the target audience in order to be useful as solutions to marketing communications problems (Belch and Belch, 1998). This is because a “winning creative idea,” one that stands out from the crowd and is memorable, can have enormous impact on sales, may influence the hiring and firing of advertising agencies, and affect their remuneration (Michell and Cataquet, 1992; Rossiter and Percy, 1997). This is because there is a high degree of chance in coming up with a winning creative idea, and random creativity is pivotal (O’Connor, Willemain, and MacLachlan, 1996). Academic researchers (Amabile, 1982; Runco and Sakamoto, 1999) have found creativity to be among the most complex of human behaviors to describe. It has even been suggested that creativity cannot be defined or measured (Callahan, 1991; Khatena, 1982). The importance of creativity is acknowledged by the scale and scope of the research activity that has been conducted both to understand it and to examine its application in diverse fields. (Brower, 2000)
Creative Individuals
I have learned that creativity is described in terms as creative thinking and problem solving, where the solution to the problem requires insight (Simonton, 1999; Sternberg and Davidson, 1995). Most involve an aspect of originality for example, “Creativity is the ability to produce work that is novel’’ (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Originality is a required but insufficient condition for creativity: the work must also be of value; that is, it should be “appropriate. (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999, p. 3) There are differences of opinion about the role and importance of creativity in advertising and marketing. I believe that managers tend to value “effectiveness,” usually measured by changes in awareness levels or in market sales, whereas creative people generally have a low regard for these kinds of measures (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995). Creative individuals tended to see an opportunity to demonstrate their own skills and aesthetic values and thereby to promote their careers (Hirschman, 1989) but it has been found that creativity is necessary for effectiveness and that it is this that “pushes the message into viewers’ minds” (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995, p. 29).
Combining two existing items, materials, ideas, thoughts, concepts in a new way can not only be creative, it is considered by many to be the essence of creativity providing,” the combinatorial leap which is generally described as the hallmark of creativity” (Martindale, 1999, p. 139). Creative people switch between the two because the primary state enables the discovery of new combinations of mental elements, while the secondary state is necessary for elaboration of creative concepts identified in the associative primary state. The theory of Associative Hierarchies was first proposed by Mednick in 1962. He stated that creativity is an associative process involving, “the ability or tendency which serves to bring otherwise mutually remote ideas into contiguity facilitate a creative solution.” According to Mednick (1962), creative individuals have flat associative hierarchies, so are more able to make original associations and thus have more creative ideas. The creative person persists in the face of this resistance and is able to “sell high.” Creativity requires the confluence of six factors: intellectual ability, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment. Again the link to the idea of associative ability can be made.
Creative Development Process
Creativity is an essential part of the creative problem-solving (CPS) process as CPS itself is a useful analytical process which can be applied in many different business contexts. Training in CPS can help employees avoid poor thinking habits and logical errors. It can make them aware of the dangers of jumping to solutions, the importance of correct problem identification and the risks of satisficing. (Guzdial, Hohmann, Konneman, Walton, & Soloway, 1998; Deek, 1997) Creativity refers to the skills and attitudes needed for generating ideas and products that are (a) relatively novel (b) high in quality (c) appropriate to the task at hand. Creativity is important for leadership because it is the component whereby one generates the ideas that others will follow. A leader who lacks creativity may get along and get others to go along but he may get others to go along with inferior or stale ideas. A good leader is one who embodies a creative vision. (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996) Creative leaders do not define a problem the way everyone else does, simply because everyone else defines the problem that way. They decide on the exact nature of the problem using their own judgment. Most importantly, they are willing to defy the crowd in defining a problem differently from the way others do (Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).
Creative Leadership
Creative leaders recognize that they must decide to take sensible risks, which can lead them to success but also can lead them, from time to time, to failure (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995). Gifted leaders are more willing to take large risks and to fail as often as they need in order to accomplish their long-term goals. Creative leaders are willing to surmount the obstacles that confront anyone who decides to defy the crowd (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Creativity, involves quality as well as novelty. One can have a very novel idea that is nevertheless not good. Henceforth, creativity often involves defying the crowd, buying low and selling high in the world of ideas as creativity is relatively domain specific and could be weakly related to intelligence but certainly is not the same as development process of intelligence (Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Successfully intelligent people balance adaptation to shaping and selection of environments by capitalizing on strengths and correcting weaknesses as it is clear how the relationship between creativity and intelligence would have aspects of the problem solving skills. The main way is through the decision to apply it.
Many leaders know better but their actions do not reflect their knowledge as their minds tell them what they should be doing but their motives for fame, for money lead them in different directions and that these leaders often fail not because they are not smart enough, but because they choose not to use the creativity and intelligence they have (Neisser, 1979). Even if skills in problem solving is critical to success in school and the community, problem solving remains a neglected curriculum area for students being taught of problem-solving skills to achieve self-set goals in respect to promoting better creativity and intelligence channels that serves as a tool and avenue for good learning practices and process. Thus, people employed in a creative capacity perform better under certain conditions, and many researchers (Amabile, 1998; Anderson, 1992; Cummings and Oldham, 1997; Nickerson, 1999) have consequently devoted effort to establish how creativity may be encouraged and enhanced. Davies (2000) suggested that anything that can be done to reduce the complexity is worthy of consideration and recommended the use of decision-support software. According to Davies, an AHP can facilitate the creative process and encourage the generation of ideas, mainly by organizing, clarifying, and simplifying the decisions that need to be taken (Crutchfield, 1962).
Managers should encourage employees those that do not fit this profile–to take creative risks by providing their staff with a conducive work environment and “surrounding them by a context that nurtures their creative potential” (Cummings and Oldham, 1997, p. 35). This includes a social environment at work that will encourage positive interactions (Brower, 2000). The work environment can easily be changed to cater to the needs of creative people and by having a positive effect on intrinsic motivation, can thus have an immediate effect on performance (Amabile, 1998).
CONCLUSION
Nowadays, many people have negative ideas and preconceptions about creativity, their own abilities and about the value of the process with an understanding of a thorough problem solving process and why creativity is vital to the process for the determination of intelligence by looking at certain creativity and problem solving habits and that in order to encourage creativity, a person may open the door to a wide range of business benefits and give employees the chance to make business look great. Taking into consideration the skills to address the tasks required for problem solving and development and be able to produce their solutions in an environment that does not restrict creativity and intelligence respectively.
In reflection, when people identify individuals, as gifted in such domain they often concentrate on what they know about the domain and their ability to learn about that domain thoroughly than other individuals. But gifted adults are identified as such by the leadership roles they take in their fields, not by how quickly they learned about their fields. Instead, one attains eminence by leading the field with one’s ideas. If one thinks of some of the most eminent people in the field of gifted education, one knows they got to their positions not by demonstrating high scores on tests of knowledge but by being leaders with their ideas about how to educate the gifted. Therefore, creativity is typically thought of as it pertains to the arts but it does occur in almost any kind of activity and within various groups of people such as originality and imagination, its identification can sometimes be easy. Thus, creativity, involves divergent thinking the ability to come up with unusual answers. Therefore, creative people can score lower than others of similar intelligence on the same exam. Test designers have also been imaginative and have designed ways to test divergent thinking. But creative people tend to express their originality best in spontaneous situations and not under the usual test taking conditions.
Lastly, parents can foster creativity in children by providing a stimulating environment that is possibly involved within the child’s special interests and aptitudes and availability of necessary supplies, offering children a variety of experiences and materials inside and outside the home, focusing on the child’s strengths rather than criticizing his weaknesses, trying to help balance child’s need to follow authority with peer pressure and innovative behavior, setting an example by pursuing interesting activities at home and in the community, allowing family interaction with creative children and adults and by respecting children and showing confidence in their abilities.
REFERENCES
AMABILE, T. M. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 5 (1982): 997-1013.
ANDRIOPOULOS, C. “Determinants of Organizational Creativity: A Literature Review.” Management Decision 39, 10 (2001): 834-40.
BARRON, F. Creativity and Personal Freedom. New York: Van Nostrand, 1968.
BARRON, F. Creative Person and Creative Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.
BELCH, G. E., and M. A. BELCH. Advertising and Promotion, an Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (International ed.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1998.
BROWER, R. “To Reach a Star: The Creativity of Vincent van Gogh.” High Ability Studies 11, 2 (2000): 179-205.
BURNETT, L. “Keep Listening to That Wee, Small Voice.” In Readings in Advertising and Promotion Strategy, Arnold M. Barban and C. H. Sandage, eds. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.
CALLAHAN, C. M. “The Assessment of Creativity.” In Handbook of Gifted Education, N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis, eds. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1991.
CROPLEY, A. J. “Defining and Measuring Creativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?” Roeper Review 23, 2 (2000): 72-80.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. “Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity.” In The Nature of Creativity, Sternberg, R., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
DAVIES, M. “Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process in Advertising Creativity.” Creativity and Innovation Management 9, 2 (2000): 100-108.
DYKES, M., and A. MCGHIE. “A Comparative Study of Attentional Strategies in Schizophrenics and Highly Creative Normal Subjects.” British Journal of Psychiatry 128 (1976): 50-56.
EINSTEIN, A. “Autobiographical Notes,” In The Library of Living Philosophers, VIII, Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, P. Schilpp, ed. and translator. New York: Open Court Publishing Company, 1946.
FLETCHER, W. “The Management of Creativity.” International Journal of Advertising 9, 1 (1990): 1-37.
FREEMAN, J. “Emotional Problems of the Gifted Child.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 24 (1983): 481-85.
GETZELS, J., and P. JACKSON. Creativity and Intelligence: Explorations with Gifted Students. New York: Wiley, 1962.
GIBSON, L. “What Can One TV Exposure Do?” Journal of Advertising Research 36, 2 (1996): 9-17.
GOLANN, S. “Psychological Study of Creativity.” Psychological Bulletin 60 (1963): 548-65.
GOUGH, H. “A Creativity Scale for the Adjective Check List.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979): 1398-1405.
HICKEY, M. “An Application of Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children’s Musical Compositions.” Journal of Research in Music Education 49, 3 (2001): 234-45.
HIRSCHMAN, E. C. “Role-Based Models of Advertising Creation and Production.” Journal of Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 42-53.
HOCEVAR, D. “Measurement of Creativity: Review and Critique.” Journal of Personality Assessment 45, 5 (1981): 450-64.
ICEK, A., and M. FISHBEIN. “The Prediction of Behavioral Intentions in a Choice Situation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5 (1969).
KOVER, A. J., S. M. GOLDBERG, and W. L. JAMES. “Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating Classification for Advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research 35, 6 (1995): 29-40.
LUMSDEN, C. J. “Evolving Creative Minds: Stories and Mechanisms.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
MACKINNON, D. “Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential.” American Psychologist 20 (1965): 273-81.
MARTINDALE, C. “Biological Bases of Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
MEDNICK, S. A. “The Associative Basis of the Creative Process.” Psychological Review 69 (1962): 220-32.
MEEKER, M. The Structure of Intellect: Its Interpretation and Uses. Columbus, OH: Charles & Merrill, 1969.
MENDELSOHN, G. A. “Associative and Attentional Processes in Creative Performance.” Journal of Personality 44 (1976): 341-69.
MUMFORD, M. D., and S. B. GUSTAFSON. “Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation.” Psychological Bulletin 103, 1 (1988): 27-43.
NICKERSON, R. S. “Enhancing Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
O’CONNOR, G. C., T. R. WILLEMAIN, and J. MACLACHLAN. “The Value of Competition Among Agencies in Developing Ad Campaigns: Revisiting Gross’s Model.” Journal of Advertising 25, 1 (1996): 51-62.
REID, L., K. KING, and D. DELORME. “Top-Level Creatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then and Now.” Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): 1-16.
ROSSITER, JOHN R., and LARRY PERCY. Advertising Communications & Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
RUNCO, M. A., and S. M. OKUDA. “The Instructional Enhancement of the Flexibility and Originality Scores of Divergent Thinking Tests.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (1991): 435-41.
RUNCO, M. A. and S. O. SAKAMOTO. “Experimental Studies of Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
STERNBERG, R. J. “Identifying and Developing Creative Giftedness,” Roeper Review 23, 2 (2000): 60-65.
STERNBERG, R. J. and J. E. DAVIDSON, EDS. The Nature of Insigh., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
STERNBERG, R. J. and T. I. LUBART. “An Investment Theory of Creativity and Its Development.” Human Development 34 (1991): 1-32.
STERNBERG, R. J. and T. I. LUBART “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
VAN DEN BERGH, B., L. REID, and G. SCHORIN. “How Many Creative Alternatives to Generate?” Journal of Advertising 12, 4 (1983): 46-49.
WALLACH, M., and N. KOGAN. “Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction.” New York: Wiley, 1965
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment