Understanding and Measuring Creative Thinking in Leaders

More documents

Recommendations

Info

198 THE 71F ADVANTAGEare desirable and how to deliver the proper feedback and, if applicableand possible, the recommended training program for creativity enhancement.Although the goal may be to raise scores that are “too low”on creativity to foster innovative potential, scores that are “too high” (eitherglobally or on some particular facet such as in the IPIP–NEO) mayalso be problematic or dysfunctional for the organization’s needs. In addition,feedback and training should be tailored to the particular leaderbased on role. For example, it may not be necessary for certain administratorsto be especially creative themselves as long as they can facilitateinnovation and are open to new ideas from peers and subordinates.A counseling tool like the prescriptive Career Architect/Leadership Architect(Lombardo and Eichinger, 2004) is useful in this regard since ithas separate sets of recommendations for developing creativity, managinginnovation, broadening perspective, dealing with ambiguity, and becomingstrategically agile.In sum, tailored developmental programs that include feedback,coaching, role-playing, and the like can make most people better leaders,regardless of any natural advantage they may or may not have due topersonality or prior experiences (Zenger and Folkman, 2002). Becausethere are as many kinds of creativity training as there are screening instruments,leader developers must be very careful in selecting or designingthe best courses for their participants if they are to add value to theirorganizations given resource and time expenditure (see Birdi, 2007). Forleaders, one fruitful form of training certainly involves learning how tosuccessfully identify and evaluate useful original ideas (Blair and Mumford,2007; Licuanan, Dailey, and Mumford, 2007). Increasing awarenessof the variables, processes, and conditions leading to positive considerationof original ideas can provide the foundation for skill developmentunder both simulated and real conditions. Specifically, the effectsof such factors as job challenge and autonomy, social norms, group orteam cohesion and diversity, and organizational identity must be understoodif leaders are to effectively respond to and manipulate them tofoster innovative growth (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, and Haslam, 2007;Carmeli, Cohen-Meitar, and Elizur, 2007; Mirowsky and Ross, 2007;Nemeth and Ormiston, 2007). The best facilitators of creative thinkingthoroughly understand both their own and others’ thinking processes(Catling, 2007).Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, and Gilmore (2000), believe that personalityassessment and the self-awareness and understanding that
UNDERSTANDING AND MEASURING CREATIVE THINKING IN LEADERS 199follow are critical first steps to developing the political and social skillsthat do lead to organizational innovation and success. This stance hasclearly been taken to heart at such corporations as Intel, which in 1998launched its Leadership Development Forum as an effort to develop theleadership necessary to meet the challenges of technological change andburgeoning demand (Carter, Ulrich, and Goldsmith, 2005). Its premiseis that “leadership is just as much about who we are as it is about whatwe do” (Carter, Ulrich, and Goldsmith). Thus, a key part of the programinvolves a “self-discovery process” through which participants come tounderstand how they think and make decisions, and are encouragedto step out of their “comfort zones” and question their assumptions andparadigms. They learn that leadership necessitates continuous learningand moving beyond “known” management skills and techniques to incorporatingtheir personal values into an innovative, passionate, even“audacious” vision or specific project for the organization that will helpset corporate direction, align constituents, and inspire others for the future(Carter, Ulrich, and Goldsmith). Participants practice what theyhave learned through production of a leadership autobiography thatembodies their self-reflection, a leader action plan, and special project.The program to date continues to enjoy concrete results in the formof organizationally beneficial project outcomes, as well as the enthusiasticsupport of senior and junior executives alike (Carter, Ulrich,and Goldsmith).Ultimately, of course, leader developers can do all the personalityscreening and training it is possible to do and still have little impacton organizational change and implementation of innovation if managerialsupport and organizational climate and culture are inconsistentwith creative work, and thus diminish motivation to perform the latter(Birdi, 2007; McLean, 2007; Senge, 1990). In fact, Ekvall (1999) specificallylinks a transformational leadership style to fostering a creative climate.The broader society must also be taken into account for possiblecultural hindrances to creative expression, especially when working ininternational settings (Averill, Chon, and Hahn, 2001; Kim, 2007). Finally,it must be kept in mind that some but certainly not all psychologicalinstruments are “culturally transferable” in terms of the meaningfulnessof their referents.This study has a number of limitations that affect drawing generalizationsand conclusions. First, it must be remembered that theIPIP–NEO instrument used was only a proxy representation of the
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 8Understanding and Measurin
Page 3 and 4: UNDERSTANDING AND MEASURING CREATIV
Page 23: UNDERSTANDING AND MEASURING CREATIV

Understanding and Measuring Creative Thinking in Leaders

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?