Articles archive

What Blocks Creativity? A Managerial Perspective.

Authors: John C Groth, Texas A&M University, John Peters, Lovingstone Bell & Associates, Calgary
First published: 2000

Introduction

The creative talents of people are a valuable resource for an organization. The mind is the source of 'human leverage'. The creative genius of people provides opportunity for leverage of human capital. Leaders and managers face the challenge of releasing, nurturing, and focusing the creative talents of individuals to achieve desired effect.

'Barriers' and 'inhibitors' block 'creative willingness.' Inhibitors consciously or unconsciously influence creative willingness. Real and perceived barriers and inhibitors may exist. Since perceptions influence behaviour, even false barriers are of import to those who desire to increase creative willingness. Barriers or inhibitors block, suppress, and drive into hiding the creative talents of individuals.¹ Barriers thwart the efforts of the leader and/or manager who seeks to bring human creative talent to focus on achieving goals.

Although, there are some distinctions between barriers and inhibitors, in this paper the use of barriers/inhibitors interchangeably offers acceptable simplification. A variety of factors inhibit people in their willingness to use their creative talents. One might speculate on the inhibitive forces. Instead, the authors decided to ask managers, face to face, what factors inhibit their creative willingness.

This paper reports on what men and women feel constrains or inhibits the creative willingness of people in their work environment. The reports from managers reflect 'face to face' input from a large number of people in a controlled setting over more than a four-year period.

The results are of interest to the practicing leader and/or manager, individuals, and researchers. A leader often is intent on tapping the creative genius of people.² A leader resolved to releasing, nurturing, rallying and focusing the creative talent of the human resources of his or her organization will find this paper interesting, informative, and relevant.

A manager charged with the responsibility of human resource management may desire to release and focus the creative talents of people to achieve particular ends. The results provide the prescription for managing an environment that allows the emergence of the creative talents of employees.

Individuals will find the results intriguing and recognize a number of the inhibitors reported by others as personally relevant. Readers also may identify ways to enhance access to their own creative talents.

Researchers will find the findings important for several reasons. Researchers have explored factors that inhibit people in their willingness to use creative talents. This report is more ammunition for increased research aimed at providing practical assistance to leaders, managers; and individuals in their efforts to release the creative talents of humans. The profession has an opportunity to assist others in releasing, nurturing, and focusing creative talent for great effect. The timing is right: more businesses and organizations are recognizing and accepting the prospect of great leverage of mind. As researchers and consultants, we can and should help them find and place the lever and fulcrum - and instigate movement in mind.

The motivation for this work stems from the interplay of two perspectives.

• The frequently observed unwillingness to access, have trust in, and benefit from people's creative talents.
• From reports of others and personal observation - sometimes under the worst of circumstances - of the breakthrough of creative talent with resultant incredible effects.

Curiosity prompted us to ask people to identify barriers perceived to block or inhibit creative willingness.

The paper provides a brief sketch of selected relevant items from the literature, followed by background information for this study. Next follows a description of the method employed to glean the information from managers. Then the paper provides the finding, offers some speculations, and closes with a summary.

The sources or causes of perceived barriers to creative willingness are important. The remarkable effectiveness of factors in the suppression of creative talents also holds interest.

Background

Often people think of creativity and the creative act in a limiting sense - perhaps yielding a work of art that hangs in a museum or a new symphony. We characterize creativity in a broad context. Words of A. Koestler superbly capture the spirit of the more inclusive definition: '... the defeat of habit by originality.'

The challenge of motivating, leading, and focusing the talents of each person in a work force - rather than only a select and small set of individuals typically characterized as creative - prompt the broad stroke to creativity. Figuring out a clever way to move a product more efficiently to the customer, discovering how to reduce the wear on a cutting tool, diagnosing an intermittent fault on a complex piece of machinery, knowing the precise words to favourably influence behaviour - all represent harvest from the creative genius of people.

A short voyage through and sampling of the recent literature support our efforts. Research and writers have discussed and offered valuable insights on creativity in the work-place as well as the nature of the creative process. For an excellent review and to stimulate thoughts and offer perspectives on the theory of creativity, we commend the works of Amabile (e.g., 1998), Busse and Mansfield, and Rickards (e.g., 1973, 1981, 1991, 1991).

The Busse and Mansfield contribution offers both insights and ample stimulation on the nature of the creative process. The works of Rickards collectively lend an appreciation of factors and important perspectives on global as well as micro issues related to creativity. Rickards, and Rickards and co-authors, also show ample appreciation of the practical aspects of providing for and stimulating creativity and innovation. The Rickards and J ones (1991) work offers background of particular import to this paper. A sampling of the works of these researchers appears in the references.

In addition to these contributions, in terms of both theory and application, other literature also identifies some of the difficulties encountered in fostering creativity in the workplace. Lee (1998) points to a focus on new products that offer real differentiation as a backlash to the endless stream of 'me-too' products in recent years. Lee predicts that the path to future successful products will demand a sufficiently different paradigm from existing algorithms for product development. The author calls for the development of 'ideas culture' environments in which individuals are not afraid to question accepted practice.

Ogilvie (1998) argues against the relevance of using old approaches to new problems and takes issue with the planning process. Ogilvie also targets imagination as an underused part of strategic planning. His prescription suggests creative, action-based decision-making processes supercede the traditional strategic planning processes.

Others address the fostering of creativity. Morand (1998) discusses the recent trend towards 'casual Fridays' in relaxation of dress codes. He points to informality as a tactic employed in hopes of encouraging social familiarity and status levelling with the intent of fostering creative thinking. A change in atmosphere perhaps signalled by change in acceptable dress hopefully develops free-flowing communication networks and individual creativity.

On a similar theme, Houlder (1998) cites examples of how the exercise of business discipline over creativity can lead to clashes of culture. Houlder recommends the need for the special handling of creative people and the need for management controls to keep creative organizations on the rails. He also stresses the role of skilled leadership and of the challenge of the work itself in inspiring creativity. We find it somewhat curious that actions aimed at increasing the willingness of people to engage in creative thoughts and possible actions would target a particular day in the week. We suspect the distribution of opportunities and problems do not recognize the need to appear only on Fridays. Similarly, although a change in dress code may alter behaviour, a change in the historically imposed dress codes of the mind seems more appropriate.

Buckler (1998) suggests that the predominance of 'taught learning' - as opposed to 'discovered' learning - is stifling creativity and innovation.

Bently (1998) criticizes managers who scorn 'touchy-feely stuff, arguing that 'The soft stuff is really the hard stuff.' Bentley also promotes the notion that people work best together when they have mutual respect and care for each other's interests.

The Harvest: Managers Views

The Setting

The observations stemmed from individuals in management education programmes. Each programme was one, two or three weeks in length. A six to eight hour block of each of these programs focused on creativity. This segment occurred at the end of each programme. Consequently, having worked and socialized together, the individuals were reasonably familiar with one another. Hopefully, this made people more comfortable in volunteering thoughts and opinions. In 16 of the 67 programmes, one author had worked with participants prior to this session for a day in an unrelated area.

The Sample

Nearly all of the individuals were mid-level or first level managers. One small group of six people consisted of the president of a division of a large firm (revenues of billions) and the five top vice presidents. Three individuals (two in one group and one in the small six-person group) previously had participated in another programme in which the seminar leader spoke on creativity. For the other groups, this day was the first exposure of the seminar leader to the participants.

Bias

The people included in management development programmes likely do not represent the population at large or even a particular subgroup. Consequently, we do not extrapolate the findings to a particular population. Nevertheless, these individuals represented interesting sources. Available data will not support a particular conclusion about the representatives of the sample. Although a biased sample, one suspects these individuals enjoyed similarities with the many thousands of others employed in similar positions.

Second, speculations suggest the level of these managers results in them being more familiar with the attitudes and perceptions of a broader array of people in the work environment concerning barriers to creativity. Except for the group of six top-level executives, these people, as a matter of daily routine, interact with a diverse array of people 'who do the work'. Managers at a higher level in an organization may well remain insulated from input from subordinates on this topic - especially given one of the most cited barriers.

The total sample consists of 1781 people in 67 different groups. These individuals had employment with for profit, non-profit, government agencies, and the military. Approximately five per cent had heritage in foreign countries and 'grew up' in different cultures.³ The garnering and recording period for this information covers March, 1992 to February, 1998.

The nature of participants initially argued for dividing the 67 groups totalling 1781 people into three major subgroups. Twelve of the 67 groups contained total of 199 people having a mix of employers. Twenty-five groups with a total of 801 consisted of people directly or indirectly involved in the retail industry. They all had the same employer. These individuals did have responsibilities and experience spread over a variety of functional areas - not just directly related to point of sale.

The remaining 30 groups clearly represent a very biased sample. The 781 individuals in these 30 groups may have had various backgrounds but currently are all one profession. Each of these people was in the law enforcement profession and employed in Texas. Their employers ranged from state agencies, to large metropolitan police forces, to counties, to small villages. Their positions ranged from chief to first level supervisor. These participants likely do not represent any kind of sample of the 'full population'.

This biased sample offered the prospect of unusual and interesting observations allowing comparison between this 'different culture' and the results of the more diverse groups. The reports from these individuals were not as expected. On reflection, the nature of their responses might in fact strengthen the potential conclusions of the study.

Method

Pre-exercise

Participants were not aware of the nature or content of the individual sessions or 'exercises' prior to the beginning of each session and or exercise. They knew only the topic for the day. Purposely, the participants had no reading assignments or prior preparation related to the segment. The intent was to avoid the effects of previously presented programme materials, readings and discussions on how individuals might respond. The objective was to avoid directing behaviour, thoughts, and responses during the exercises.

Naturally, people may have arrived with some prior notions and exposure to issues related to creativity. We have no details on any special background in this area except for the three previously mentioned. Excluding the three from the session was not practical. Except for these three people, post-programme evaluations indicated the sessions on creativity had been a unique, 'first of its kind', experience.

Environment

Participants were in a neutral environment. Except for the one small group of six, the 'superiors' of participants were not present. In several instances, one or more people in each group were from the same organization. We assured participants, and it was in fact true, that we did not relate responses to any individual. Second, prior to any exercise or discussions, the programme 'catalyst' advised participants that: individual worksheets from exercises would remain personal, and not collected; participation was voluntary with no coerced public response; notes made only reflected the comments of people and the date and name of the group. Real time note taking using an overhead projector allowed participants to both observe and offer any corrections or additions. To avoid influencing comments, the seminar leader explained he would defer comments until after all others had the opportunity to speak.

Visual cues from writing comments in view of the group may have triggered or influenced successive comments. Given the audience had already heard the comments, displaying notes as made seemed more important to assure people notes did not relate comments to names. Failure to understand a comment by the seminar leader or participants prompted the leader to seek clarification before continuing.

Specific Exercise

We invited the group to offer voluntary contributions. The harvest of their opinions and feelings occurred in a near spontaneous fashion.

The results that form the basis for this paper stem from one segment of the program and an exercise. No one was aware of the nature of the exercise prior to the beginning of the session. Other discussions with the full group and small group exercises on different topics preceded this particular exercise. These served to break the mindset and make people more at ease in sharing thoughts and ideas.

The harvest of managers' views proceeded in two stages. First, people met in groups of four or five. Next, all these subgroups returned for a joint session. Purposely, we did not provide the opportunity for advanced thought concerning the exercise. The discussion leader gave instructions in two minutes or less, indicated the desire for spontaneity, started the clock, and sent the small work groups to separate rooms. The instructions indicated the short time allowed for each stage of the exercise. The instructor urged the participants to quickly jot notes in word or outline form. He also asked that members of a group not argue or debate the relevance of an offering from a person. The intent was that the small groups identify as many possible barriers or inhibitors in the short time allowed - and not reach conclusions about the relevance or importance of any particular barrier. In some sense, because of the strict and short time limits and absence of advanced preparation, one might term the responses spontaneous.

The exercise tasked participants with identifying:

• On a personal basis, perceived barriers to creativity in the work and personal environment. Instructions called for silence during the first few minutes of the group meeting to allow each person to make individual notes before others offered comments. Individuals were free to edit/add to their personal comments as a result of group discussions.
• Inhibitors to creativity that were likely common across all people in any corporate or organizational setting. (Group discussion.)
• Perceived barriers to creativity in the corporate/organization setting in which they worked.

In addition to the verbal instructions, each person received written directions on the sheet on which he or she recorded responses. Individuals knew that we would not collect their individual work sheets and we would not compel anyone to share items on a sheet. The intent was that individuals would not feel inhibited or potentially embarrassed by the recording of a barrier. Recall that the directions called for each person to first focus individually on identifying factors that personally inhibited creativity. The work sheet provided space for each person to jot notes reflecting personal perceived barriers to creativity. In terms of individual assessment, individuals considered barriers without distinguishing between the personal and professional environment.

After the allotted five minutes, individuals shifted to discussion in the small groups of four or five people. Once again, participants focused on barriers to creativity in both the personal and professional setting. Intentionally, the time for the work group period was also short, only fifteen minutes. We favour the short work time since we believe it promotes spontaneity.

The small groups now returned to the joint or full group session. The discussion catalyst (as opposed to leader) served as the public scribe in the full group session. With rare exception, individuals seemed open and eager to share factors they identified as inhibitors or barriers to creativity. In several instances of each programme, the scribe had to slow the responses since he could not scribble fast enough, even using abbreviations, to note the comments.

People were not restricted to making comments related to barriers previously recorded on worksheets during the sub-group sessions. Participants were free to share new thoughts stimulated and released during the full group period. The sharing of responses often triggered such additional thoughts.

During the harvest of thoughts some reported that individually or in their group they had identified the same factors reported by the other work groups. Given the nature of the process, the reported factors were in no particular order. Since we purposely did not collect individual worksheets, we cannot offer frequency data based on individual responses.⁴ Any apparent order in the summary 'data' in this paper reflects order of emergence of the inhibitors in the full groups' sessions. It does not reflect reported order from separate work groups or individuals.

Analysis

The authors purposely avoid the too common temptation to somehow subject the 'data' to some form of statistical analysis. In this instance, such analysis would be statistically indefensible, add little, and risk subtracting much. The data simply do not support such manipulation or test. Instead the paper shares what managers report, then offers comments of potential insight, and leaves the ultimate conclusions to the reader. The ingestion, digestion, and contemplation by readers of the 'results' offer greater promise than any summary statistic.

Managers Report

The results suggest visual cueing was not a problem. Findings represent the harvest from full groups, not from the small work groups.

A representative summary of the full gathering from one group appears in Table 1. Table 2 provides the most commonly cited factors in the full group 'public' report. In every single instance for all 67 groups:

• 'Fear(s)' of various 'types' surfaced as a factor of importance. . 'Fear(s)' was the first factor mentioned in 46 or 47 of the 67 groups.
• 'Fear(s)' was one of the first three inhibitors reported in 63 or 64 of the 67 groups.⁵

The nature of 'fear' varied. Some examples of fears included the fear of failure; of rejection; of ridicule; of peer group pressure; of success; of consequences; of criticism.

Table 3 provides an ad hoc segregation of the barriers into possible categories that might support insights. The authors subjectively identified these categories after completing the sessions. Some inhibitors or barriers appear in more than one category.

In addition, the ordering of inhibitors within each category is arbitrary and does not reflect a reported order. We emphasize the data do not support this categorization. We offer this exhibit with hopes of stimulating thoughts and discussion.

A summary of what managers told us yields a few important precipitates.

• Judging from the responses, factors in the professional environment do lead to inhibitors that reduce, restrict, or eliminate the creative willingness of individuals.
• People perceived the presence of numerous barriers to creative willingness.
• Barriers exist in the 'personal sense or context' as well as in the professional work environment.
• Fear(s) of some type is the predominate barrier.
• The barriers identified across this relatively large number of groups and people were common.
• The barriers reported by those in law enforcement were similar, if not the same, as those reported by the other groups. However, these groups did report with greater frequency some additional barriers they viewed as unique to their work setting (legal and liability; formalized procedures, rules, and policies).

Implications and Speculations

We focus briefly on three issues:

• The implications of our conclusions based on what managers told us.
• A preliminary prescription for those who desire to increase the creative willingness of individuals.
• A speculation on another potential issue of import.

Implications

Perceived barriers exist that inhibit the willingness of individuals to use creative talents. Managers who desire to increase the efficiency and contributions of human resources and feel creativity is important in that process should give attention to perceived barriers in the environment and in the minds of people.

Prescription

We argue that the removal of perceived inhibitors to creativity will result in greater utilization of creative talents. The manager faces the problem of identifying and finding practical way to remove barriers that inhibit the creativity of employees. Efforts intent on removing barriers might focus on the 'personal environment' as well as the 'professional' setting. However, many would assert one should not attempt to interfere or influence an employee's personal life. On the other hand, that guidance should not keep the work environment from not only allowing but also supporting individual efforts to access and develop a greater use of creativity in the personal environment.

Speculation

The repeated surfacing of fear(s) as a barrier prompts us to speculate on the possible presence and implication of fear(s) in the work environment relative to other issues of import. There are pros and cons to the role of fear, its influence on behaviour, and its role in an environment. Rather than enter this debate, we suggest that a manager address whether it is a conscious decision and intent to create perceived fear(s) in the work environment. If not, an examination of the work environment may unearth perceived fears that are dysfunctional with respect to a host of intended behaviour, e.g., the role of fear in blocking effective communications between people.

Summary

Responses from a large number of people in 67 different groups over the period 1988 to 1998 period suggest that individuals perceive barriers to creativity in the work environment. Second, groups reported common inhibitors. We argue that efforts intent on increasing creative willingness should address the removal of perceived barriers in the environment and in the minds of people. Third, we speculate that perhaps fear(s) may contribute to other dysfunction.

Notes

1. A subsequent paper will focus on steps managers can take to remove, reduce, or temporarily eliminate barriers to creativity in the work environment.

2. The authors recognize some scenarios exist when the last thing a leader wants is the emergence of creative abilities and actions.

3. We regret we did not have an acceptable way to garner information from participants in a manner that would trace comments to individuals allowing for possible detection of differences by culture. Instead, in an effort to provide for an open sharing of comments, we assured participants and keep the trust that we would not relate or record comments in a fashion allowing their association with an individual.

4. The prospect of collecting nice complete data sets was alluring. Instead we favoured potentially greater openness by the assurance that we would not collect the written comments of people.

5. There was uncertainty in the recording on one of the record sheets. That is the reason for the uncertainty in this number.

References

Adams, J.L. (1979) Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas, 2nd ed. New York: Norton.

Amabile, T.M. (1998) 'How to Kill Creativity' Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 77-87.

Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A. and Grossman, B.S. (1986) 'Social Influences on Creativity: the effects of contracted-for reward,' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Badaway, M.K. (1986) 'How to Prevent Creativity Mismanagement,' Research Management, July-August, 28-55.

Bentley, T. (1998) 'The soft stuff is really the hard stuff (human relations in the workplace),' Management Accounting, February.

Brill, AA (1929)'Unconscious Insight: Some of its Manifestations.' International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 10, 1945-161.

Brown, M. and Rickards, T. (1982) 'How to Create Creativity,' Management Today, August, 38-41.

Buckler, B. (1998) 'Practical steps towards a learning organization: applying academic knowledge to improvement and innovation in business processes,' The Learning Organization, 5, No. 1.

Busse, T.V. and Mansfield, R.S. (1980) 'Theories of the Creative Process: A Review and a Perspective,' The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 14, No. 2, 91-103+.

de Bono, E. (1971) Lateral Thinking for Management, London: McGraw - Hill.

Grundy, LX, Kickul, J.R., Prather and C.W. (1994) 'Building the Creative Organization,' Organization Dynamics, 22, no. 4, 22-37.

Hall Rose, L. and Lin, H. (1984) 'A meta-analysis of long term creativity training programmes', The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 18, 11-22, Buffalo.

Higgins, L.F., Qualls, S.H. and Couger, J.D. (1992) 'The Role of Emotions in Employee Creativity' Journal of Creative Behaviour, 26, No. 2, 119-129.

Hirst, B. (1992) 'How Artists Overcome Creative Blocks,' Journal of Creative Behaviour, 26, No. 2, 81-82.

Houlder, V. (1998) 'Keeping a lid on egos at work (managing creative people),' Financial Times, (UK), January 26.

Lee,C. (1998) 'Buck your ideas up (product innovation) Marketing, (UK),' 5 February.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1962) 'The Nature and Nurture of Creative Talent,' American Psychologist, 17, 484-495.

Morand, D.A (1998) 'Getting serious about going casual on the job,' Business Horizons, January - February.

Ogilvie, D.T. 'Creative action as a dynamic strategy: using imagination to improve strategic solutions in unstable environments,' Journal of Business Research, 41, Issue 1.

Rickards, T. (1981) 'Creativity in tiny increments,' International Management, 7, 114.

Rickards, T. (1991) 'Innovation and creativity: woods, trees and pathways," R&D Management, 21, No.2, 97-108.

Rickards, T. (1973) Problem-Solving Through Creative Analysis, Farnborough: Gower Press.

Rickards, T. and Jones, L. (1991) 'Towards the Identification of Situational Barriers to Creative Behaviours: The Development of a Self-Report Inventory,' Creative Research Journal, 4, 303-315.

Simon, H. (1987) 'Making Management Decisions: the Role of Intuition and Emotion,' Academy of Management Executive, February 57-64.

Simonton, D.K. (1990) 'Creativity in the Later Years: Optimistic Prospects for Achievement, "The Gerontologist, 80, No.5, 626-631.

Simonton, D.K. (1991) 'Emergence and Realization of Genius: The Lives and Works of 120 Classical Composers,' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61, No. 5, 829-840.

John C. Groth is Professor of Finance, Lowry Mays College & Graduate School of Business, Texas A & M University, Texas, USA.

John Peters is a Partner at Livingstone Bell and Associates, Calgary, Canada.

Reprinted from Creativity and Innovation Management Vol. 8 No. 3 September 1999 by kind permission of the authors and Blackwell Publishers