The crisis demands for more creativity …
Looking at the problems of today it becomes obvious that more of the same seems not to be the right cure. For The Times They Are A-Changin’, as Bob Dylan nicely put it, a fresh new approach towards business but also economic and societal problems is more important than ever.
But to date, the term ‘creativity’ in business has mostly been applied to the use of creativity techniques. While such techniques can be helpful to open managers up to new ideas, and while personal stories of artists can have an inspirational impact, both approaches are limited in their ability to help us appreciate peoples’ inherent creative potential. If creativity is to add value to an organization, managers first have to understand its principles and develop the mindset, attitude and knowledge of where, when and how creativity emerges. 
A look at the artist Joseph Beuys (1921–1986) might help us to grasp some of the underlying principles of creativity and how to make good use of it. Key to his approach are three core concepts for the path to creativity:
- The active form of thinking (personal creativity);
- The sculptural theory (process creativity); and
- The social sculpture (collective creativity).
1. Personal creativity
Most of the thinking we do every day, according to Beuys, is routine: we repeat patterns and come up with the same solutions. But what if we want to generate new ideas in order to invent processes and products? To accomplish this, we must let go of well-known patterns of thinking and old solutions, and enter into what Beuys described as “the active form of thinking.”
Beuys defined three levels of active thinking: inspiration, intuition and imagination.
Inspiration is the moment that we spot something new or get the first spark of an idea. Sometimes people speak about the refreshing sensation of a ‘click’ when a moment like this happens. The idea is not yet clear, but one starts to sense what it could become. Most people experience intuition in the process of creativity. They sense and feel the quality of the upcoming idea, and trust their gut feeling. If we ask highly successful people the secret of their success, they often say that they sensed more than they thought about the topic. Intuition is the emotional side of the personal creativity process. Imagination is the final step in active thinking. What came to us as a spark and became more real by sensing is now generating an image. In the process of creativity, we start to let the image grow and make it as concrete and powerful as possible in order to communicate the idea. Imagination is the ability to think about the end result and make it visible.
2. Process creativity
In his sculptural theory, Beuys stated that every material that we use to produce a work of art ranges between two poles: structure and movement. Movement is related to activity, warmth, energy and intuitive thinking, but also to disorder and chaos; while structure is related to form, coldness, organization, rational thinking and structure. Beuys used this concept systematically in his own artwork: if he believed that more warmth was needed for a particular situation, he would choose the appropriate material. He claimed that this principle was not only relevant to artistic production, but has validity for all processes, including processes of communication. That is, ‘material’ can also be thought of as what people say or contribute to a process.
Process creativity involves the active shaping of a situation (by adding either more structure or chaos), instead of controlling it. In this sense, the process itself becomes creative. To manage process creativity, you have to closely observe the situation and judge its tendency towards structure or chaos.
3. Collective creativity
When Beuys was asked to name the most important piece of artwork that he ever produced, he always answered that it was the concept of the ‘social sculpture’ – a concept through which he brought together two disparate elements: social behaviour and the principles of building a sculpture. The heart of the concept is what he called ‘sculptural thinking’. Beuys saw the interaction of humans, in and of itself, as a sculptural space that could be shaped, on a metaphorical level, in the same way as a real sculpture.
While we can observe an entire painting at once, the perception of a sculpture is quite different. Obviously, we are not able to see the entire sculpture from a single vantage point. We observe it by moving around the object, beginning with one particular view and eventually coming back to the starting point, where we again see the same thing as when we started, but not the other side. However, we now have a memory of what we saw on the other side, and based on the memories of different perspectives and information, we ‘construct’ the image and form an opinion about the observed object. Beuys calls this process of assembling the different perspectives ‘sculptural thinking’.
In closing
We all have to acknowledge that — despite the emergence of analytical, metrics-driven approaches to problem solving — imagination, inspiration and intuition still have an integral role to play in modern business and society. Rather than being constrained by the boundaries of established management culture and legacy organizational practices, managers need to recognize the potential to sculpt their organization’s innovation practices and social interactions, just as Beuys created new forms of artwork through his understanding of the creative process. Perhaps the term ‘sculptural thinking’ should become a core part of the management lexicon for the 21st century.
Note: This comment was written by Martin Kupp, alumnus of the World Business Dialogue organizing team and draws on a recent article in Business Strategy Review by Jörg Reckhenrich, Jamie Anderson and Martin Kupp called “Understanding creativity: The manager as artist”.




End Creativity Crisis- TEACHING FOR CREATIVE OUTCOMES: WHY WE DON’T, HOW WE ALL CAN!
Excerpted and adapted from: Manzo/Manzo/Thomas § Content Area Literacy: A Framework for Reading-Based Instruction (5th edition) Wiley (2009)
Websites: 1.http://teacherprofessoraccountability.ning.com/main/invitation/new?xg_source=msg_wel_network 2. http://bestmethodsofinstruction.com/ and 3. a new site for detailing some professional teaching methods for Professional Teachers: http://anthony-manzo.blogspot.com/2010/05/brief-writing-for-thoughtful-righting.html
Anthony V. Manzo, Ph.D.
avmanzo@aol.com
It is ironic that the act of passing on prior inventions and discoveries, or acquired knowledge, seems to diminish the inclination to think creatively. Clearly, the mind is empowered by acquiring the experiences and knowledge accumulated by our predecessors; however, it also can be powerfully constrained by the way in which knowledge is transmitted. In point of fact, there appears to be a host of subtle but pervasive factors woven through the fabric of traditional schooling that tend actually to discourage the type of critical analysis–the thoughtful articulation and decomposition of a problem–that leads to constructive thinking. I take constructive thinking to be the composition and assembly of possible solutions, including some that may need to be invented. Constructive thinking, then, includes both “critical” and “creative” intellectual processes.
Factors That Discourage Constructive Thinking
Think, if you will, of these realities of traditional schooling:
The problems that are most in need of creative solutions often are socially “off limits,” and hence difficult even to define and articulate. (President Clinton’s call for a national dialogue on race and racism, for example, has become a national nonevent.)
Schools are set up to transmit existing knowledge; this goal tends to conflict with any real attempt to generate new knowledge.
Students, by definition, are quasi-ignorant, and hence, it doesn’t seem logical to invite them to think critically, let alone creatively, about what they don’t yet fully know about or presumably understand.
As teachers, we have not been educated in a climate conducive to creative thinking ourselves, and so we are understandably unsure of how to encourage or even to allow it.
Most current academic tests reward convergent, or “within the box,” thinking, often to the exclusion of divergent, or “outside the box,” thinking.
The addition of constructive thinking to the equation defining academic success changes the system of ranking students (Ratanakarn 1992) and, hence, the current academic power structure.
Key Ingredient to Promoting the Constructive Process
It is possible, however, to raise expectations and teach for creative outcomes. The key that most often opens the door to constructive thinking simply is to reach up and ask for it. This simple suggestion may not seem to be a very satisfying solution, but it is a reasonable place to start. A cursory look at schooling, most anywhere on the globe, reveals that there is hardly lip service paid to this constructive, or knowledge building, process. The closest that even the professional literature in education comes to valuing this process is to praise the importance of some related higher-order mental processes such as “transfer of training” (application), critical thinking, or the evaluation of the ideas of others. Even discovery learning approaches, so popular for a while, have tended to fade in importance, perhaps because there was no constructive thinking context to support them. It is very rare to find a school curriculum guide or a professional organization’s accreditation standards or a blue-ribbon commission’s call for educational reform that makes constructive thinking–especially creativity–a major objective, let alone something to be practiced, with commensurate methodologies and assessment protocols. That is especially unfortunate because there is considerable reason to believe that the simple gesture of establishing creative thinking as a target can bring quick and impressive results, even from the self-declared “uncreative.”
Here now are some largely nonintegrative, though sound, suggestions for promoting creative thinking. Note how easily many of these suggestions could be integrated into the curriculum if there were a collective will to do so.
Creative Thinking Activities
These stand-alone activities can establish a climate and a schema for creative thinking in most classrooms. Initially, they might be done on a fixed basis, say for the first twenty minutes of class on “Thinking Thursdays.” It is especially useful to explain to youngsters why such activities are being undertaken. To do so tends to ignite pupil interest in and contributions to the overall process as well as to the given activity. (For a regular bulletin with creative thinking activities, subscribe to The Tin Man Times, Box 219, Stanwood, Washington 98292.)
Word creation. Language is constantly changing. To help students to be participants in our living language, provide occasional exercises such as the following:
Define the made-up word squallizmotex; explain how your definition fits the word.
If dried grapes are called raisins, and dried beef is called jerky, what would you call these items if they were dried: lemons, pineapple, watermelon, chicken? (Provided by a favorite teacher, Maria Manzo Wiesner.)
Unusual uses. Have students try to think of as many unusual uses as they can for common objects. Objects may vary from a “red brick” to “used toys.” Ask students to identify objects that challenge inventive thinking. Objects that students have suggested or brought to class have included old tennis balls, handballs, and racquetballs; soda water bottles; and old eight-track cassette tapes.
This activity could be easily tied to units on recycling and current events. Newspapers and magazines often carry stories of the clever ways in which some things are being recycled. One such article told the fascinating story of how the tons of rubber from old tires was being used in a mix to make the very asphalt roadbeds that ate them up in the first place. Another, more recent story noted that this solution had created another problem. It appears that as the rubberized roadbeds deteriorate from use, they put more floating rubber molecules into the air, which is already overloaded with such molecules from normal tire wear.
The “what ifs”–or, Circumstances and consequences. “What if” statements build what could be called extant comprehension, or abstracted understandings of the physical world and the social order. This activity and several that follow essentially tap into a key cognitive factor on the widely used Weschler IQ tests. Insights and understanding are gained merely by asking, What if
school was on weekends and not during the week?
people were allowed to tell one lie a day?
all babies looked alike at birth?
there was no perception of color?
This type of activity can be made more academically sophisticated and integrative by upping the caliber of the “what ifs” to situations such as the following:
What if we all had identical genetic make-up?
What if everyone would vote on every issue that now is decided by representatives to Congress?
Rational problem solving. These are questions and problems to which youngsters often can deduce positions, though not necessarily answers, using current levels of knowledge and experience. Similar questions can be raised to urge further study and exploration via Internet chat groups and specialized Web sites. Examples of starter problems or questions that can be considered by rational thinking and exploration are as follows:
Is it possible for someone to fly the way Superman does?
Why do scientists say that it probably isn’t possible to go faster than the speed of light?
Why is it unlikely that there are aliens on Earth right now?
Currently, Matt Thomas, a research assistant, and I are experimenting with a related teaching technique based on the use of an algebraic metaphor. The method encourages multifactor, and hence interdisciplinary, thinking on targeted concepts and issues. It is proving to be very evocative from middle to graduate school levels. (For details and updates, contact Matt at: mmdthomas@cctr.umkc.edu.)
Product improvements. Teachers can design questions that basically ask, “What is broken?,” the theme of several of the exercises that follow. (Generating these questions requires considerable imagination in itself!) Here are some sample product-improvement-oriented questions:
How might school desks be improved?
How might living room furniture be improved to provide better storage and even a way to exercise while watching television?
How might we take further advantage of all the unused space between walls, above ceilings, and in attics and basements?
How can book-carrying bags be better equipped to handle lunches and other personal needs?
Problem identification. What’s the problem? What doesn’t work? What’s needed? These questions almost always lead to creative thinking. When asked to generate these challenging questions, students have identified problems that included the following:
Some way to deal with the loss of water pressure when the faucet is turned on and someone is in the shower
A place to quickly and easily put toys and stuff in your house
A quick way to check a spelling when you’re writing (or shouldn’t you bother just yet?)
A way to dry and store wet washcloths and mops
A way parents can get kids to help around the house
Systems and social improvements. Breakthroughs in world order, peace, and sanity often are the result of the creative vision of a few individuals who have pictured innovative social and systems changes (e.g., bicameral government, legally binding marriage, democracy, the post office). To encourage such social inventing, teachers can pose problems and reward plausible solutions to questions such as the following:
What might be a way for every student and parent to know what homework is due?
How can we get ourselves to be courteous to everyone, including those we may tend to ignore?
How can we help people who are not very bright, or are less able due to aging or infirmity, to meet the complex obligations of modern life? (Provide some examples by category, such as owning a car, which requires renewing a driver’s license, getting the proper insurance coverage, getting license plates, safety inspections, etc.)
How can school be made more fun without hurting expected learning outcomes?
What are some of your “pet peeves”? What are other social problems that might need attention?
What’s good about. . .? This activity is especially useful for establishing a constructive orientation and for helping students to build a mental menu of ideas that are workable:
What’s good about bureaucracies?
What’s so good about compulsory education?
If language usage pretty much defines how language is used, why do we need books on and study in grammar and standard usage?
Making the Thinking-Curriculum Connection a Habit
Haggard (1976) has suggested four steps to further integrate constructive thinking into the standard school curriculum. Consider this a more detailed way to just “ask for it.”
1. Pose a stimulating question. In other words, ask for constructive thought.
2. Brainstorm. Initial responses can be generated in small groups, following standard brainstorming ground rules: All responses are permitted, without criticism; as many ideas as possible are listed; unusual, even “wild,” ideas are not discouraged; and new ideas can and should be formed by combining ideas already mentioned.
3. Compare ideas. After brainstorming, each small group should share their ideas with the class for review and evaluation. Students may wish to choose the “funniest” or the “wildest” response generated by each small group. At this point also, ideas are assessed for “reasonableness,” or practicality. It is important to point out that all creative solutions are at best just “possibles” until tried and proved.
4. Fuse to curriculum. The whole point of a thinking curriculum is to transfer new knowledge and power to personal problem solving. That process is more likely to occur when real problems are allowed to surface and are the forces behind reading, learning, and thinking. Here are some examples for grade levels 4-12.
Maggie Magpie was determined never to write in cursive. We know that she eventually came to like it, but what might the teacher have done to help her sooner?
Before we find out how Huck saved Jim, think of some possible ways for him to do so.
What new invention (or system) could you come up with that would change the end of this story?
After reading Liange and the Magic Paintbrush: What would you paint if you had a magic paintbrush and whatever you painted would then come to life? (Gross 1990).
What might not work properly today if pi had not been properly calculated?
Describe a problem you are having in reading or studying, and try to create a personal reading-study technique to solve it. (For further guidance with this activity, see “PASS: A Problem-Solving Approach to Study Skills,” Manzo and Casale 1980; and “Strategy Families,” Dana 1989. Both can be found in Manzo and Manzo 1993, 1997.)
There are several other transfer activities that are especially suitable for typical reading or viewing assignments. Collins-Block (1991) offers seven questions to guide such fusion:
1. Could you give me an example?
2. What do you mean by —–?
3. What is not an example, but similar to the idea that you are describing?
4. Is this what you mean: —–?
5. Would you say more about —–?
6. Why do you believe (feel or think) that —–?
7. What is the main point?
Collins-Block provided a context for these questions by asking students to report times in their lives when they had benefited from asking clarifying questions. Good discussion is also provoked when students are asked to tell about times they got into difficulty for failing to ask clarifying questions. It is best to urge students to practice using these fusion-type questions with one another, such as in cooperative learning groups.
Where to from Here?
There are several possible “next” steps. Here is one that we are taking. Our recent research, looking at possible deficiencies in proficient readers, is suggesting that there are apparently academically strong individuals who have some well-masked weaknesses in the way they are able to think about, or apprehend, what they otherwise seem to adequately comprehend (Manzo et al. 1997). These findings now are causing us to try to better understand an inverse condition, that of the naturally fertile mind. We have begun a project to study the thinking characteristics of such minds, including those creative individuals who may not otherwise be academically talented. If you are or know someone, any age/grade level, who has a particularly fertile-inventive mind, please forward his or her name, address, and phone number to us, and we will take it from there (e-mail: amanzo@cctr.umkc.edu; or manzo@rocketmail.com). One of the objectives of the Fertile Minds Project is to assemble a cadre of idea makers to advise us on possible ways to make schooling and the workplace more friendly to creative-inventive thinkers. We also can’t help getting a bit excited wondering about what synergies might occur as we bring together people who otherwise must feel isolated by a relatively inhospitable environment.
REFERENCES
Collins, C. 1991. Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities. Journal of Reading 35:510-16.
Collins-Block, C. 1993. Teaching the language arts: Expanding thinking through student-centered instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dana, C. 1989. Strategy families for disabled readers. Journal of Reading 33(1): 30-35.
Drake, S. 1982. Creative writing skills, grades 2-3. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Instruction Fair.
Gross, D. 1990. Unlocking and guiding creative potential in writing and problem solving. Unpublished manuscript. Kansas City: University of Missouri-Kansas City, Educational Specialist Project.
Haggard, M. R. 1976. Creative Thinking-Reading Activities (CT-RA) as a means for improving comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Manzo, A. V., A. E. Barnhill, A. Lang, U. Manzo, and M. M. Thomas. 1997. Subtypes of proficient readers. Paper delivered at the College Reading Association Conference, Boston, Mass.
Manzo, A. V., and U. P. Casale. 1980. The five c’s: A problem-solving approach to study skills. Reading Horizons 20:281-84.
Manzo, A. V., and U. Manzo. 1993. Literacy disorders: Holistic diagnosis and remediation. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
—–. 1995. Teaching children to be literate: A reflective approach. Harcourt, Brace.
—–. 1997. Content area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning. 2nd ed. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Ratanakarn, S. 1992. A comparison of reader classification by traditional text-dependent measures and by addition of text-independent measures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City.
~~~~~~~~
.
.
Quote this Comment