Conference – Creativity or Conformity



Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education

A conference organised by the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy

Cardiff January 8-10 2007

How to kill creativity - 10 Easy Steps

Edel Moore

University of Leeds

e-mail: e.m.moore@leeds.ac.uk

Copyright © in each paper on this site is the property of the author(s).  Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy.  For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).

Abstract

A cursory review of educational headlines would suggest that educational institutions today can be perceived as formalised, regimented and systematic. Academic factories that reward those, staff and students, whom conform best to rigid systems that ensure the efficient processing of quantity. However, is this the reality of the situation? Do prevailing economic and bureaucratic driven pressures within higher education at best stifle creativity or at their worst actively eradicate the existence of creative thought? The following paper asks the question, is there a place for the successful teaching and development of marketing and entrepreneurial based creative skills within the UK educational system, and if so how can these newly merging pedagogical areas be nurtured?

This investigation explores the interplay between creativity and conformity within modern university systems. It case studies a marketing enterprise module, taught to Design students at the University of Leeds, to highlight the issues faced and outputs achieved. The paper reviews current thought from social sciences and management literature relating to creativity, creative marketing, entrepreneurship and creative problem solving and the difficulties of incorporating these dynamic entities into a manageable teaching situation.

How to kill creativity - 10 Easy Steps

Introduction

This paper describes and documents the procedures, outcomes and difficulties involved in teaching, evaluating and assessing the module Creative Marketing Entrepreneurship (CME) within The School of Design, University of Leeds. The aim of the investigation is to explore the interplay between creativity and conformity within the modern university system. It begins by reviewing literature surrounding the newly merging areas of marketing management, enterprise and creativity. It documents and describes the CME module, how it operates, student output and feedback. Finally the paper concludes with an overview and discussion of the findings and implications for marketing educators.

Creativity: From Genesis 1.1-3 to Genesis: Turn it on again - The Hits

“ …we are always involved in what may be called metacreative acts: creating definitions even when trying to define creativity” Pope (2005) p.67

The literature surrounding the concept of creativity is as vast as the subject areas interested in it. The term is associated with concepts ranging from biblical inferences, interpretations of the innate genius (Koestler, 1964, Miller 1996, Ghiselin, 1985) to more recent research concerning the channelling and replicating of creative benefits among management teams (O’Reilly, 2005). Although creativity, according to Jeanes, (2006) has become “the modern mantra” it is interesting to note that it was only in the after 1933 that the abstract noun creativity” appeared in The Oxford English Dictionary and it was 1959 before the first conference dedicated to creativity occurred (Pope, 2005). There are now a proliferation of associated terms including creative industries, creative economy and creative environments etc. commonly referred to. However, the literature and definition surrounding the term is still evolving and there remains ambiguity as to what creativity is and what it may and may not legitimately encompass. For the purpose of this paper it may prove useful to frame the concept of creativity with reference to its antecedents and interface with marketing, entrepreneurship and innovation.

Creative Marketing Management

While there is no one consistent held view of creativity, there are central themes which can help describe the subject. These suggest that to be truly creative there must be an element of "radical newness" Hausman (1975) or “meaningful novelty” Andrews & Smith (1996), but this has to be combined with a “usefulness” (Newell and Shaw, 1972) in other word to be creative “ a solution must have value.” Couger,(1990). Also creativity is no longer viewed solely in terms of output, but can also incorporates processes.(Shalley et al., 2000, Drazin et al., 1999)

Marketing management theory has been interested in understanding creativity and its benefits from the perspectives of the individual and the organisation. This literature incorporates issues such as motivation, creative problem-solving and cognition (Finke et al., 1996), methods for stimulating creativity (De Bono, 1983); and characteristics of creative persons (Sternberg, 1999) as well as perspectives on creative work-culture (Tanner, 2003; Smith, 2004); group organizational support and environment, (Amabile, 1997, 1996) and creative process 'flow' (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).

Creativity in marketing and business has existed for centuries (Nevett & Nevett, 1987). Marketing activity requires individuals and organisations to (in some format) behave and solve problems creatively to ensure survival in competitive markets. However researchers such as Fillis (2005) argue that this creative struggle is not reflected in standard marketing theory. Fillis highlights that although one of the founding fathers of marketing theory Phillip Kotlers’ ….

“..initial text on marketing management contained an entire chapter on creativity … this emphasis has now been lost, with little more than a mention of creativity at the idea generation stage of new product development.” Fillis (2005) p 199

Academic, practitioners and political policy makers alike are calling for these competencies to be researched and developed within the marketing and marketing education arenas. (Storey, 1994, Cox, 2005)

Entrepreneurial Creativity

“Entrepreneurs straddle the border between the internal and external worlds of their organizations, building relationships and exploiting market-based assets (externally), while setting overall vision and leading the creative collaboration processes (internally). “

Napier & Nilsson (2006) p.269

While there may be discrepancies between marketing management theory and its practice these shortcomings become even more marked when we look at the subject of entrepreneurial management. The chaotic complexities of entrepreneurship are often seen as incompatible with the structured frameworks of conventional marketing theory. (Carson, 1998). Both however are key determinants of the fate of business owners and their enterprises. The success or failure of these enterprises, and their potential for continuous growth and profitability are largely a function of the entrepreneurial orientation and marketing competencies of their founders.

Just as with creativity, successful entrepreneurship according to Ward (2004) is a “…balance between novelty and familiarity”. Nystrom (1995) confirms that entrepreneurship incorporates both the “...visualisation and realisation of new ideas..” but he goes on to state that this view “..does not require entrepreneurs to be highly skilled in generating new ideas, but instead emphasises the promotion and implementation of radical change.” This would suggest that entrepreneurial creativity is viewed as an entire process of business development in which stages such as problem definition or implementation are as valued as product innovation.

Creative problem solving and innovation.

One issue of research interest, which links the subjects of marketing, entrepreneurship and creativity is the ability to create valuable and innovative outcomes through problem solving. Titus (2000) was among the first to visually represent this theoretical overlap.

Titus, P. A. (2000). Marketing and the creative problem-solving process. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder. Vol. 22,  Iss. 3,  p. 230

Within this model creative problem solving is seen as a central marketing competency which can compliment formal marketing planning and strategy in order to develop competitive or rather a “creative” advantage. Entrepreneurial creativity and creative marketing from theoretical and practical perspectives are activities that seem to entail regulated, convergent thinking on the one hand and the encouragement of divergent and creative innovation on the other. Jonassen (1999) states that thinking skills such as creativity, decision making, problem solving, and knowledge reinforce each other rather than being either/ or entities.

Creative Marketing Entrepreneurship (CME)

“All innovation begins with creative ideas. .. …innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas. In this view creativity is the starting point …for innovation; the first is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the second.”

Amabile (1996) p.178

Although the importance of creativity has been widely acknowledged, a lack of creativity has been observed in the classroom and workplace alike (McIntyre et al. 2003, Driver, 2001, McHardy, P, Allan, T, 2000). If one accepts the premise that creativity and entrepreneurship can be taught, a belief not held by all, then it follows that educational emphasis should be given to increasing students' ability to enact the creative problem solving approach. As there are few who question the process of teaching marketing one way to overcome any educational purpose misgivings is to encourage the overlap between creative problem solving, marketing and entrepreneurship.

Within the CME module creativity is viewed as a central marketing competencies and Titus’ view of CPS is utilised. This means that all elements from problem identification to solution presentation are incorporated. The module requires students to holistically view the entrepreneurial process and formulate the most appropriate customer centred solution while encompassing areas such as commercialisation, implementation, communication, and the creation or modification of products, systems and services. The module is based upon Gabors’ (1973) belief that innovation is the “...process that turns an invention ..into a marketable product.” The module is taken by 75 third level students split into two sessions 50 from Fashion and Textile based programmes and 35 Graphics based students. It operates over two semesters. The aim of the module is to allow students an opportunity to develop their understanding of the scope and limitations of marketing and entrepreneurship, and to examine the potential for developing a new way of thinking about customer centred problem solving that is creative and innovative. It involves students undertaking a practical project in which they explore, research, devise, produce and present a professional marketing and promotional plan for an approved business concept of their choice. As all students have obtained 80 credits of marketing from their previous two years of study the module assumes a high level of subject specific knowledge and as such is much more concerned with the application of this knowledge to creative and commercial problem solving.

The module structure is left as open as the university system allows, there are three lectures at the beginning of each term and three costing and graphic lectures given by academic experts in these areas. A schedule of three, “one-to-one” sessions between the tutor and the business individual/ group are also made available. Students are made aware that attendance of these sessions are not compulsory but that their ability to utilise them in the most professional manner will be monitored. At this stage students are encouraged to apply previous marketing insight and view the meeting as a customer marketing scenario, where the tutor (customer) outlines her requirements. It is the students (marketer) role to meet these as completely as possible. The actually definition of a business problem is left entirely open to the students and no restriction other than commercial viability is enforced. This ensures that task formation is seen as an integral part of the project. The module is assessed through the following combination of submissions:

a formal marketing plan in week 11 worth 45%;

a highly creative and visually based communication plan in week 22 worth 35% and

a fifteen minute verbal and visual presentation to colleagues and tutor, worth 20%.

Student Output and Feedback.

(For detailed examples of work please refer to exhibits at presentation.)

As the formulation of the business problem is left entirely to the student the approaches and concepts developed are highly diverse. Although there are a few students who stay within their chosen degree subject areas, the majority seek commercial opportunities from a range of alternatives including services, non-profit making, community based and product innovation formats.

One of the most unexpected results was the prevalence of service based concepts with 65% falling within this category. Although the majority of their academic training focused on product issues, the output more closely reflected the UKs’ current services/ manufacturing breakdown.

By taking a broader perspective on creative marketing students have driven marketing innovation itself. Instead of limiting projects to product features, they have used emotionally based positioning “to move the battle from fighting for the minds of customers to fighting for their hearts”

Reactions to the Exercise

Based on student qualitative feedback the module appears to be highly popular among the majority. With the most “involved” students appreciating the opportunity to put their business “dreams” down on paper. These “real” projects also tend to achieve the highest grades.

One of the issues that caused the most concern is the fifteen minute presentation. Students talk about visions of the “Dragons Den” being conjured up. However they state that they find it highly interesting to listen to other commercial ideas. They can also appreciate that if they can master the lecture theatre situation it should help them in future work situations. It should be noted that although this is probably the first time they have conducted an individual presentation, they have been involved in group presentations at levels one and two.

Not all feedback was positive as some students felt that the entrepreneurial aspect held no interest for them and they felt their careers would never follow this route. Some students did manage to slightly alter the brief so that the project entailed developing a new concept within an established firm. Although this strategy was not encouraged because it was similar to their second year brief, it was approved as it highlighted elements of intrapreneurship.

Some students also felt uncomfortable at the start as the sense of ambiguity and openness of the task left them “lost”. In the majority of cases the one-to-one sessions helped to alleviate the problem.

Ten Easy Steps

“While creativity is often viewed as a trait bestowed upon a chosen few, creative cognitive processes are fundamental for human functioning.” Moreau (2005) p 56

A perusal of the top ten self-help guides highlights that we live in a culture that likes a “quick fix”. All titles promise success and usually within a predetermine timeframe. However, due to its multifaceted nature there is no one formulaic guide to becoming creative. Paradoxically and ultimately fortuitously for many of our educational institutions there is no one sequence of inputs which can eradicate the tenacious creative impulsion. However, there are many environmental and cultural stumbling blocks that if educational institutions do not genuinely try to remove, will at best minimise the propensity for students to develop their creative inclinations. Although it is a highly subjective and unsubstantiated view the following list incorporates some of the major impediments encountered when developing, conducting and assessing the module Creative marketing entrepreneurship within The School of Design.

1. Quantifiable ambiguity. “What’s the word count?”

Both the “Learning and Teaching” governing body and the third level student cohort seemed perplexed that an exact formula for proportioning percentage marks to a quantifiable entity such as word count could only be roughly given. Although this holistic perspective and the underlining premise that it required greater levels of creativity to “sell the idea” in 2500 words as opposed to 3,500 on discussion was understood by students no such enlightenment was gained by the university governing body and a highly “consistent” quantified method for obtaining results was sent from on high and attached to all documentation.

2. Economies of scale. “Space charges.”

Within a School of Design with its insatiable need for creative studio space a module based on marketing is prised for its possible student to square foot ratio. Trying to incorporate a more realistic staff to student ratio in order to increase creative capabilities is met with nothing short of economic horror. After its first year the module was modified from a series of lectures to a class of 150 students with additional “cafeteria” drop in sessions, to two modules offered to 50 and 35 students and scheduled one-to-one meetings. Although this is still not the optimum interaction conducive to generation of creativity it was an improvement. Future involvement in a new programme dedicated to Design and Technology Management has allowed provision for greater creative teaching possibilities.

3. Pre-existing Knowledge: Fear of failure. “How can I achieve a First?”

The previous experience of tutor, students and administration may impact on the true level of creativity. We have all been in the educational system for a long period of time and strategically want to achieve our multitude of objectives. So yes the majority of our input was to successfully facilitate truly creative outcomes, but also issues of achieving the best mark; juggling other teaching commitments; RAE output, litigious and timeframe concerns will have creative consequences.

4. Organisational restriction. “Ok everybody get creative at 4 O’clock on a Friday evening”

For reasons that are too long to go into here, the central timetabling system at the university was adamant that the only time the module could occur was at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon. Although I understand that when you are truly a professional time and location are irrelevant, I found that on the odd occasion both the student cohort and I were more interested in getting out of the lecture theatre at this juncture in the week than fully engrossing ourselves in creative activities. As I am the first to profess my own professional inadequacies, this resulted in both the third level students and I unanimously agreeing to move the lecture to a Wednesday afternoon, even though this contravened the universities access to sports policies.

5. Bureaucracy, Bureaucracy, Bureaucracy. Rules & Regulations. “Can you sign the register, please!”

“Creativity implies an absence of sameness, security and predictability…Organisations, by their very nature, tend to try to control activity, define roles and processes, and avoid mistakes.

Lein (1990) p 65

As I do not want to add to the debate of the pros and cons of bureaucracy and the ultimate importance of form filling within the education system, I will just comment that these are a fact of academic life. And although I believe it goes against the fundamental autonomy of creativity I have found that if a loophole is left in the paperwork, a small minority of students may use this ambiguity to litigiously overcome poor performance. Although creative problem solving is encouraged this “belated creativity” was not the purpose of the module so I too have devised forms for students to submit with work.

At this stage, and based upon legal advise, it may be appropriate to state that the above comical introspective list is exhausted and that The School of Design, University of Leeds does not consciously or unconsciously employ practices to “Kill creativity” . So with the reputation of my employer and my own teaching career intact I’m sure that anyone involved in encouraging creative activity at individual or organisational levels will have encountered similar or more debilitating constraints.(Klein, 1990) However, it should be remembered, now that the importance of creative thinking and self developed problem solving skills within the marketing field is no longer in debate, it is the responsibility of our academic institutions to actively pursue research and apply policies that nurture and these key competencies.

Conclusion: Creative Advantage

“Nothing drives progress like the imagination. Information may well be the currency of modern business, but ideas provide the seeds for its growth and prosperity. Businesses that consistently bring new and novel ideas to the market enjoy the rewards of significant growth and long-term profits.” Titus (2000) p.225

Marketers and designers operate within dynamic and turbulent environments that require constant updating or creation of better and/or new customer centred solutions. (Stenstroem 2000).The importance of this ability to develop innovative processes and outputs is discussed extensively within marketing and economic theory and is directly linked with the generation of competitive advantage at individual, organisational and national levels. As discussed creativity is a complex construct that has numerous definitions depending on the field of study viewing it. Although there may not be one universally agreed definition, it is generally accepted that creative thinking and creative problem solving (in its many forms and applications) are key competencies for the 21st century. (Robertson and Collins 2003, Fillis 2005) Within the marketing and management literature creativity in the form of innovativeness, as a source of generating and sustaining competitive advantage through a creative based economy has recently received considerable attention from academic and government writers alike (Levitt, 1987; Titus, 2000; Cox, 2005). Historically authors such as Schumpeter (1934) in the 1930’s and Adam’s (1879) in the nineteenth century were among the first to postulate the relevance of creativity to economic prosperity. The European Union predicted in 2000 and confirmed in March, 2004, that Europe is lagging behind the US and Japan in its socio-economic development primarily because Europe is not innovative and entrepreneurial enough.

If the importance of creativity is not in question then it is the responsibility of educational institutions to ensure that emphasis is given to the nurturing of creative inclinations. Nevertheless, it is not easy for educational institutions to make realistic commitments to developing creative affirming process and environments. Today’s’ educational institutions are by their very nature bureaucratic hierarchies which have to employ formalised and systematic structures if they are to meet the requirements of transparency and financial viability. Yet highly creative individuals, both staff and students may not always survive organizational life as conformance to the structure may be at odds with the characteristics of the creative individual. This struggle between creativity and conformity within our education institutions will have considerable industrial and economic consequences and as such will have to be seriously addressed during the coming years.

Bibliography

Andrews, J, Smith, D (1996) In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research. Chicago: May 1996. 33(1)

Amabile TM. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review 40(1

Amabile, T., Conti, H. Lazenby J. and Herron, M. (1996), "Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity", Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4)

Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in Organization Behavior, Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds). (Vol. 10). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT

Carson, D (1998) The marketing-entrepreneurship interface: A critique and some pragmatic alternatives for marketing managers. Irish Marketing Review. Dublin: 11(1)

Couger, D (1990) Ensuring creative approaches in information systems design. Managerial and Decision Economics (1986-1998). 11(5)

Csikszentmihalyi M. 2003. Good Business: Leadership Flow and the making of Meaning'. Coronet/Hodder and Stoughton: London.

De Bono E. 1983. Serious Creativity. HarperCollins: London.

Drazin,R & Glynn,M & Kazanjian.R. (1999) Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. The Academy of Management Review. Briarcliff Manor: 24, (2)

Driver (2001) Fostering creativity in business education: Developing creative classroom environments to provide students with critical workplace competencies. Journal of Education for Business. Washington: Sep/Oct 2001. 77(1)

Eriksson, L.T. & Hauer, A.M. (2004).  Mind Map Marketing: A Creative Approach in Developing Marketing Skills. Journal of Marketing Education Boulder:Aug 2004. 26(2) 

Fillis, I. & Rentschler, R. (2005).  Using creativity to achieve an entrepreneurial future for arts marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing London. 10 (4)

Fillis I. 2002a. Nurturing creative behaviour in the craft sector. Irish Marketing Review 15(1)

Fillis I. 2002b. Creative marketing and the art organisation: what can the artist offer? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary sector Marketing 7(2)

Fillis I. 2002c. An Andalusian Dog or a Rising Star? Creativity and the marketing/entrepreneurship interface. Journal of Marketing Management 18(3-4)

Finke R, Ward T, Smith S. 1996. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. MIT: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gabor, A. (1973) How to compete .Management Today. London: MAY 1973

Ghiselin B (ed.). 1985. The Creative Process: Reflections on Invention in the Arts and Sciences. University of Califorinia Press: London.

Gryskiewicz SS. 1987. Predictable creativity. In Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics, Isaksen SG (ed.). Bearly Limited: Buffalo, NY.

Hausman, C.R. A Discourse on Novelty and Creation, Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands, 1975.

Hilton Barrett, Joseph L Balloun,  Art Weinstein. The impact of creativity on performance in non-profits.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. London: Nov 2005. 10(4)

Jeanes, E. (2006) Resisting creativity, creating the new. A Deleuzian perspective on creativity. Journal of creativity an innovation management. 15(2)

Klein, A (1990) Organizational barriers to creativity and how to knock them down. The journal of consumer research. 7(1)

Koestler A. 1964. The Act of Creation. Pan Piper: London.

Levitt, T (1986), The Marketing Imagination. New York: The Free Press.

McHardy, P, Allan, T (2000) Closing the gap between what industry needs and what HE provides.

Education & Training. London: 2000. 42(8/9)

McIntyre, F, Hite, R, and Rickard K (2003) Individual characteristics and creativity in the marketing classroom: Exploratory insights. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Aug 2003. 25(2)

Miller A. 1996. Insights of genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art. Copernicus/ Springer-Verlag: New York

Moreau, P & Dahl, D. (2005) Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers' Creativity. Journal of consumer research. Vol. 32 · June 2005

Napier, N, Nilsson, H. (2006) The Development of Creative Capabilities in and out of Creative Organizations: Three Case Studies. Creativity and Innovation Management. 15 (3)

Nevett T, Nevett L. (1987). The Origins of Marketing: evidence from classical and early hellenistic Greece. In Marketing in Three Eras. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Historical Research in Marketing, Nevett T, Hollander SC (eds). Michigan State University: USA.

Newell, A. and Shaw, J.C. "The Process of Creative Thinking," in Human Problem Solving, A. Newell and H.A. Simon (eds.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972

Nystrom, H. (1995) 'Creativity and Entrepreneurship' in Ford, C.M. & Gioia, D.A. (eds.) Creative Action in Organisations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices, Sage, Thousand Oaks

O'Reilly, D. (2005). The marketing/creativity interface: a case study of a visual artist

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. London: 10(4)

Pope R, (2005). Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. Routledge. London p.67.

Jonassen (1999). Computers as Mind-tools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking

Rhodes M. 1961. An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42: 305-310.

Robertson, M, Collins, A (2003) Developing entrepreneurship in West Yorkshire: West Yorkshire universities' partnership and business Start-Up@Leeds met . Education & Training London:2003.  Vol. 45,  Iss. 6.

Schumpeter, J (1934) The theory of economic development :an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press ; London

Shalley, E ,Gilson, L and Blum, T. (2000) Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal. Briarcliff Manor: Apr. 43 (2)

Smith P. (2004). Creativity, inc.: building an inventive organization. Consulting to Management 15(1)

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What Is the Common Thread of Creativity?: Its Dialectical Relation to Intelligence and Wisdom. American Psychological Association Volume 56(4), April

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of creative contributions. Philadelphia, PA.

Storey DJ. 1994. Understanding the Small Business Sector. International Thomson Business Press: London.

Tanner D. (2003) Creativity management - roadmap to building a more innovative organization. Strategic Direction 19(4): 2.

Titus, P. A. (2000). Marketing and the creative problem-solving process. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder. 22(3)

Trevor, G. (1994) Adopting an entrepreneurial approach in universities. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management Amsterdam. 11( 3,4)

Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing New York:Mar 2004.  19(2) 

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download