This section will elucidate a selection of theoretical approaches to developing creativity in a deliberate fashion. These theoretical positions are manifested in both scholarly and popular literatures.
2.9.1
Intelligent Fast Failure (IFF)
In the previous sections of this chapter, there has been reference to creators reporting being struck by the metaphorical bolt from the blue. However, in the case of Doctor Jack V. Matson, this was not the sudden burst of insight reported by so many other creative individuals. Matson was literally struck by lightning and decided afterwards to pursue a more creative path in his career as an engineering lecturer (Tahirsylaj, 2012). He wanted to encourage creativity from his students, but traditional brainstorming approaches were not well received. It was only during a building contest with popsicle sticks that he observed that the tallest structures were built by those who initially tested many ideas and the seed for intelligent fast failure was planted.
Intelligent fast failure is a theory of intentional risk-taking at the individual and organisational level in which individuals undertake manageable risks, minimizing the associated cost while maximizing their learning until a solution is devised to reach the desired outcome (Tahirsylaj, 2012). It is a useful tool for teaching and encouraging creativity, as it can unlock knowledge usually lost as a result of the ‘failure is bad’ socialization within which many people and organisations are immersed. This accepted socialization is in sharp contrast to the beliefs regarding the benefits of failure of Thomas Edison who remarked to a co-worker after a succession of unsuccessful experiments, “We haven’t failed. We now know 100 things that won’t work, so we’re that much closer to finding what will” (Einstein, 1979, p. 202). The major distinction between this and other failure theories is that IFF encourages several simultaneous experiments at both organizational and individual level, while other theories promote experimenting with one idea at a time at the organizational unit level (Tahirsylaj, 2012). Here, once more, we find a parallel with Thomas Edison who measured success by the number of experiments that can be crammed into a single day (Millard, 1990).
To use intelligent fast failure, one needs to adhere to two agreements (Tahirsylaj, 2012):
1. Understand and overcome the fear of failure. It has to be understood that this fear is counterproductive and that any creative risk includes a margin for error that may result in failure. 2. Make the decision to learn from failure. When an idea fails, learn what went wrong and do not
stop at the first attempt. Edmondson (2011) noted that in some scientific fields, over 70 per cent of experiments are unsuccessful, but these researchers know that failures contain valuable information that propels knowledge forward.
Three principles underpin Intelligent Fast Failure (Tahirsylaj, 2012), namely:
1. Generating ideas. The emphasis is on generating as many ideas as possible. Recording these ideas must become a habit and the use of an idea notebook is recommended.
2. Running experiments. This principle involves sifting the most promising ideas to be tested via experiments and learning from successful, as well as unsuccessful experiments. As Hargadon (2008) noted, a failed idea in one area can become a successful solution in another context, as well as help avoid a repetition of the same mistake in other projects.
3. Shifting perspectives. This entails the understanding of the perspectives of others, especially why an idea was not accepted by the wider community or organisation.
Matson developed three concepts that operate at the heart of the Intelligent Fast Failure when dealing with new ideas:
1. STRAFE (Success Through Rapid Accelerated Failure Engineering and Entrepreneuring). Inspired by World War Two pilots firing on the enemy, STRAFE means trying out many ideas simultaneously, as only few will hit the mark, but the others will provide learning for what does not work (Tahirsylaj, 2012). When applied, STRAFE also shortens the time required from trial and error to success.
2. CHAOS (Creating Havoc Accelerates Outrageous Success). The CHAOS concept refers to the refinement, improvement, and redesign of a creative product (Tahirsylaj, 2012). Being your own greatest competition is a key mindset to applying CHAOS.
3. Fast history. The concept of fast history refers to the tendency for ideas to become outdated very quickly in our modern age. To overcome fast history, individuals must diversify their interests and hobbies to fields that are unfamiliar to them and then connect this new knowledge with their existing knowledge to produce new ideas (Tahirsylaj, 2012). In addition, internal and external social networks become important as these networks connect people with a wider range of ideas outside their knowledge base (Hargadon, 2008). This is consistent with social network theories focusing on Social capital, referring to the total potential and actual resources derived from the network of social relationships of individuals or social groups (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, as cited in Payne, Moore, Griffis, & Autry, 2011). For example, Granovetter’s weak ties theory holds that a weak tie, meaning a relationship between a member of a social group and an individual outside that social group, is likely to grant such a group member access to non-redundant and potentially novel ideas, resources, and information (O’Donnell et al., 2007). Research on internal networks such as intra-organisational relationships among employees, has shown that social capital has
a positive influence on ideation and organisational creativity (Björk, Di Vincenzo, Magnusson, & Mascia, 2011; Lui, 2013).
The major limitation of Intelligent Fast Failure as an approach for developing creativity lies in the degree of applicability across contexts. For example, Intelligent Fast Failure may not be a good fit for environments such as emergency rooms or extreme sports such as free-climbing where mistakes may prove fatal (Tahirsylaj, 2012).
2.9.2 Learning from eminent creators
This approach assumes that one can learn to be creative by absorbing and practicing the strategies and principles of eminent artists and scientists. As a consequence, this approach inherently focuses on Big C creativity only, with the rationale that if mere mortals can master at least some of the Big C creator’s habits, they too could become creative (if only at the Little C or everyday creativity level).
There have been two broad lines of attack used for learning from eminent creators. First, there are various popular books focusing on these creators’ creative habits and lessons from their lives. Books that fall under this category include the Strategies of genius series of books by Dilts (1994; 1995) and How to think like Leonardo Da Vinci: Seven steps to genius every day by Gelb (2000). These and other similar books run the gamut in terms of their location on bookstore shelves, their placement ranging from self-development to business to arts sections. The positive reviews and ratings on websites such as http://www.goodreads.com indicate that many readers have found these books helpful, but popularity may remain their only merit without scientific research validating the advice espoused.
The other route is the scholarly study of eminent creators. Two of the more sophisticated methods are historiometry as championed by Dean Keith Simonton (Simonton & Ting, 2010) and Howard Gruber’s evolving systems approach (Gruber, 1996; Gruber & Wallace, 2001; Rostan, 2003).
Historiometry is the process of first subjecting historical and biographical data to quantitative measurement and then statistically analysing these measures to test hypotheses regarding human behaviour. When applied to creativity, it is theorised that eminent creators leave their mark on history, as well as evidence that can be unearthed by historiometric research (Simonton & Ting, 2010). At the individual level of analysis, the process starts by compiling a large list of eminent creators within a single domain or within a selected number of domains, typically using reference books and biographies as
sources. This sample can be limited in terms of time (usually using 20-year periods) and geographical areas (country, province, region, or even city). Then, each creator is scored on a large number of independent and dependant variables. The independent factors may include those related to career development (e.g. greatest work, age at first major work, awards received), training and education (e.g. highest degree, academic achievement, role models, mentors), family background (e.g. socio-economic status, birth-order), and sociocultural events (e.g. civil war, political or social instability). The dependent variables chosen are usually either eminence achieved or the creative productivity of the creator over his/her lifetime (Simonton & Ting, 2010). The data are then subjected to various statistical analyses. The evolving systems approach was developed as both a case study method and theory by Howard Gruber to address previous omissions in creativity research. These omissions include investigating the possibility that the creative act may be part of a longer process that unfolds over a lifetime and going beyond the thesis that creative products are merely a product of a special personality held by both psychoanalytic and psychometric movements to differing degrees (Brower, 2003).
Rostan (2003) noted that the evolving systems approach requires the researcher to reconstruct the meaning of creator’s experiences from their subjective developing mind’s perspective. The evolving systems approach differs from other ways of studying eminent creators in several ways (Gruber & Wallace, 2001). Firstly, it involves the direct study of a creative work as it unfolds and focuses on what the creator does while creating over time, not depending on indirect measures. Secondly, for the reconstruction and tracing of the path of the creative product to be possible, abundant material such as the work itself, correspondence, and the creator’s notebooks must be available. This is necessary to avoid making speculative leaps. Thirdly, the researcher requires both knowledge of the domain and understanding of the creator’s work (Gruber & Wallace, 2001). Lastly, the evolving systems approach avoids trying to come up with a list of traits that explain the creator’s achievement.
Instead, the evolving systems approach, as the name implies, takes a systemic and developmental view. In other words, the researcher must look at how the creator’s mind organised related systems, such as knowledge, affect, social interactions, serendipity, and the physical world (Brower, 2003). It should be noted that systems are not viewed as fixed – they are always evolving over time (Gruber & Wallace, 2001). Instances where the creator deviates from his individual or societal norms to create must be identified, as these are opportunities for personal development and change. Some approaches to case study might ignore such instances as errors of research or description, but the evolving systems approach uses this to isolate deviation-amplifying systems that are underlying such deviations. In addition, Miller (2012) noted that creative work is viewed as interactive (taking place in social and
historical contexts), constructionist (as the creator consciously develops skills for the work), experiential (as the creator develops emotional awareness of the work) and pluralistic (involving multiple projects, relationships, and insights).
Overall, both popular and scholarly approaches may be fruitful in terms of identifying and applying useful habits and strategies of those who have achieved creatively. However, findings concerning life circumstances within which eminent creators produced works may be less useful or not be possible or even desirable to recreate. Still, some extreme life circumstances may be recreated in ‘softened’ variations. For example, the fact that Einstein isolated himself from social relations for extended periods when he did his best creative work (Gardner, 1993) can be creatively softened to mean ‘Schedule and protect a specific time each day to engage in your creative projects.’