2008 - Marketing Educators' Association

MARKETING, DESIGN AND ENTREPRENURSHIP: INSTITUTIONAL
IMPEDEMENTS TO INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNERGY
A cursory review of academic headlines would
suggest that educational institutions can be
perceived as formalized, regimented and systematic
academic factories rewarding staff and students who
conform best to rigid systems that ensure the
efficient processing of quantity. However, is this the
reality of the situation? Do economic and
bureaucratic pressures at best stifle marketing and
design excellence, or at their worst actively eradicate
innovative inclinations? By case studying a
marketing entrepreneurship module within a design
school, this discussion takes a satirical and
subjective view of five of the “top ten” difficulties
encountered when incorporating enterprise and
design into a manageable teaching situation. It is
hoped that while this will strike a cord with many in
the teaching profession, it will also initiate a wider
debate concerning the institutional requirements for
creative enterprise, and the validity of bureaucratic
tensions that impede the natural synergy of
marketing, design and entrepreneurship. The paper
also reviews current thought from social sciences,
marketing, management and economics literature
relating to creativity, creative thinking, creative
problem solving and entrepreneurship.
Creativity is a complex construct that has numerous
definitions depending on the field of study viewing it.
Although there may not be one universally agreed
upon definition, there is a growing emphasis in
marketing and economics literature to the
importance of fostering creative thinking and creative
problem solving (in its many forms and applications)
as key competencies for the 21st century (Fillis,
2005; Robertson & Collins, 2003). Marketers,
entrepreneurs and designers are allied in that they
operate within turbulent environments that require
constant updating or creation of better and/or new
customer-centered solutions (Stenstroem, 2000;
Titus, 2000). The importance of this ability to
develop innovative outputs has been linked with the
generation of competitive advantage at individual,
organizational and national levels (Cox, 2005; Levitt,
1986).
E. M. Moore, University of Leeds, School of Design,
Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT;
e.m.moore@leeds.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
48
However, if the economic and social importance of
nurturing creativity is not in question, we have to
ask: Why are so few government and educational
resources placed in facilitating the development of
creativity-friendly environs? Surely it is a key
responsibility of educators to ensure emphasis is
given to nurturing creative inclinations. But it is not
easy for today’s bureaucratic educational institutions
to balance the need to employ formalized and
systematic structures to meet the requirements of
transparency and financial viability with the
seemingly juxtaposed position of making realistic
commitments to developing creative affirming
process and environments. Yet highly creative
individuals, both staff and students, may not always
survive organizational life as conformance to the
structure may in itself be at odds with the processes
of the creative individual.
REFERENCES
Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business:
Building on the U.K.’s strengths. London: H. M.
Treasury.
Fillis, I. (2005). Creativity and nonprofit marketing
organisation, International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10, 199.
Levitt, T. (1986). The marketing imagination. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Robertson, M., & Collins, A. (2003). Developing
entrepreneurship in West Yorkshire: West
Yorkshire universities' partnership and Business
Start-Up@Leeds Met. Education and Training
London, 45, 303-307.
Stenstroem, E. (2000). Kostiga foeretag. Stockholm:
EFI.
Titus, P. A. (2000). Marketing and the creative
problem-solving process. Journal of Marketing
Education, 22, 225-235.