No abstract

A major focus within the field of creativity has been on the development of methodologies aimed at deliberately nurturing creative thinking. These methodologies have attempted to mirror the creative process in ways that allow individuals and groups to explicitly call on and employ their creative faculties. In an attempt to uplift employees' creative capabilities many of these methodologies have been introduced into organizations through training programs, as well as through application to business challenges. Do these methods work? What is the empirical evidence that these deliberate creative process methods enhance employees' creativity? Though there are a handful of creative process methods, few have married the concern for application with an interest in demonstrating the benefits of these applied efforts through systematic research. Creative Problem Solving (CPS), one of the more popular creative process models, has been one of the rare exceptions. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the research literature that reports on the impact of CPS training carried out within organizational contexts, that is training programs that involved professionals or students working on real business challenges. Additionally, the positive benefits of CPS are further examined through reports that cite the outcomes of applying CPS to business challenges. In a field replete with methods that have been commercialized, it is imperative to strike a balance between research and practice as an imbalance towards practice may foster a field dominated by individuals who offer untested products and services.

This investigation evaluated the degree to which creativity training, idea generation instruction, and creative process impacted idea production, creativeness of solutions, and leadership effectiveness. Three sets of hypotheses were tested with a 114 groups of adults. First, groups whose members had some (i.e., one CPS course) or advanced training (i.e., graduate‐level study in creativity or creativity professionals) were significantly more effective at idea generation than groups without training. Furthermore, leaders with some and advanced training were perceived to be significantly more effective than those with no creativity training. With respect to creativeness of solutions, the advanced training groups outperformed all others. The second set of hypotheses focused on the effectiveness of idea generation instruction (i.e., instructions without brainstorming, brainstorming, and brainstorming with criticism). Analysis revealed no significant difference for idea generation instruction relative to idea production or creativeness of solutions. The final set of hypotheses examined the use of a simple process structure for groups without prior creativity training (i.e., distinct phases for idea generation and solution development). Analysis revealed that those meetings that followed a simple process structure out performed groups that did not follow a process for both idea generation and creativeness of solutions. Further results are presented and implications discussed.

No abstract

Kirton has asserted that his measure of creative style, Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, is discrete or orthogonal to level measures of creativity. This study used a well-established measure, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, on a relatively larger sample than in previous studies. Scores for 132 (40 men, 92 women) college students on Kirton's measure were significantly correlated with scores on Torrance's Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality subtests. Further, t tests showed a significant difference between the extreme adaptor and innovator groups for fluency.