• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
6713 creative inspiration final-7.16.13
 

6713 creative inspiration final-7.16.13

on

  • 400 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
400
Views on SlideShare
257
Embed Views
143

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 143

http://tytusblog.blogspot.com 142
http://www.yatedo.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    6713 creative inspiration final-7.16.13 6713 creative inspiration final-7.16.13 Presentation Transcript

    • Creative Inspiration BADM 6713 – Residency Presentation Bergstrom, Beverly, Mitchell, et. al July 2013
    • Background IS INNATE BECOMES UNLEARNED HOW DO WE RECAPTURE? FOCUS: PROFESSIONAL CREATIVITY (“PRO – C”) * * (Land & Jarman, 1993)
    • Creativity myths * * (Breen, 2004) - Creativity comes from creative types - Money is a creativity motivator - Time pressure fuels creativity - Fear forces breakthroughs - Competition beats collaboration - Lean/streamlined orgs are creative
    • Impacts on creativity (prior research) - Climate (Chang, Hsu & Chen, 2011) - Stress (Kudesia, 2010) - Location (Bainbride, 1998) - Environment (DeSalvo, 1999) - “Taking a Break” (Lubart, 2001) - Autonomy (Breen, 2004) - Groups (Mullen, et al, 1991) - Activities (Heslin, 2009)
    • Research Q’s: Recapturing creativity - How is Pro-C perceived? - What contextual factors are present when Pro-C inspiration strikes? - How is creativity fostered/promoted? - Does functional track impact contextual factors?
    • Methods • Interviews – (8) one-on-one interviews – 30 minutes – In-person (at place of business) and over telephone • Participants – Professionals with 10+ years of experience – Each team member will conduct two interviews • One from output function (marketing, sales….) • One from throughput function (supply chain, acct., operations….)
    • Initial Findings/Themes Pro-C Perceptions Creativity put to use in a business setting - Requires a base level of relevant knowledge/expertise and the right motivation (intrinsic versus extrinsic) - Nothing unique about this type of creativity other than the focus of the creativity (i.e., directed toward business versus other endeavors/activities)
    • Initial Findings/Themes Contextual Factors Routinized Behaviors • Morning rituals • Exercising • Nearing sleep Removal from direct stress • Meditation • Research • Take a break • Public setting Provides the ability to … - Put mind on auto-pilot - Rise above the clutter of thoughts, - “It's not likely to be at work [where I find creativity]. If I need to pay attention to the meeting, I'm not really leaving headspace to let my mind wander about.” - CONNECT THE DOTS
    • Culture/climate that encourages … - Risk-taking - Relevant differentiation - Continuous experimentation - Fun - Psychological safety (i.e., is OK to make mistakes) - Interpersonal congruence - Trust - Autonomy - Customer centricity Initial Findings/Themes Promoting Creativity Helps individuals to … • De-stress and • Connect the dots In line with prior research “There's a guy who is bringing the full force of creative energy at work, in large part because I gave him that opportunity and cleared his plate of a whole lot of things so that he would have the time and the resources at work to crack these hard problems and come up with really creative and innovative solutions.”
    • No significant functional differences were noted - Just the areas impacted by the resulting creativity Initial Findings/Themes Functional Differences?
    • Implications to Practice/ Future Research Keys to ProC Creativity: – Staying relevant to the area of creativity – Having passion on a topic/area (intrinsic motivation) – Keeping an open mind – Continuous experimentation – Remaining agile – Taking planned risks Keys to Creative Inspiration: – Not thinking about the problem/Getting distracted – Getting Isolated, possibly in a Vulnerable Way An area of future research: – Effects of openness, relevance, experimentation, passion, agility, and planned risk taking on ProC Creativity via a conjoint analysis – Vulnerability and Creativity, Pre-Sleep Creativity
    • Thank you!!!!!
    • References Bainbride, J. (1998). Great ideas are not desk-bound. Marketing, 63. Breen, B. (2004). The 6 myths of creativity. Fast Company, (89), 75–78. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/p/padilla/www/435-Leadership/Creativity Myths Dec 2004.doc Chang, C.-P., Hsu, C.-T., & Chen, I.-J. (2011). The relationship between the playfulness climate in the classroom and student creativity. Quality & Quantity, 47(3), 1493–1510. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9603-1 DeSalvo, T. (1999). Unleash the creativity in your organization. HRMagazine, 44(6), 154–164. Heslin, P. a. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 129–145. doi:10.1348/096317908X285642 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. a. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688
    • References Kudesia, R. (2010). Innovators love yoga and you should too. Leader to Leader, 11–16. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ltl.435/abstract Land, G., & Jarman, B. (1993). Breakpoint and beyond: Mastering the future--today. Harper Collins. Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 295–308. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07 Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and applied social …, 72(1), 3–23. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1 Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: on productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European review of social psychology, 5(June 2013), 37–41. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14792779543000084