Executive summary

Creativity and innovation is critical for individuals, organisations and entrepreneur’s to be successful.
This paper explores the literature to define creativity as the process of idea generation (novel and
useful); whereas, innovation as the implementation of the idea. The concept of idea links creativity and
innovation and as a result one cannot be successful without the other. Furthermore, it was identified
that the way creative ideas are generated and honed into innovations is an iterative process through
divergent and convergent thinking styles. Moreover, the ability to successfully transition between the
two is thought to be achieved by more creative individuals. However, this can skill can be learned and
enhanced through exercise that increases blood flow in the brain as it is the basis of neurogenesis and
increase the individual’s capacity for learning and connecting ideas. The outcome of the creative process
leads to inventions and innovations that entrepreneurs identify through opportunities. It was identified
that entrepreneurs are constantly searching and scanning for opportunities leverage successfully for
social or economic gain. As result this is not restricted to either independently or within organisations as
both have different forms of freedom that enable success. In conclusion, deliberate creative thinking
was explored where it showed that focussed thinking through the use of tools such as mind maps and
six thinking hats can lead to enhance innovative results that are a continual iterative process. Finally, a
case study was applied in a local government setting where the author demonstrated how creativity and
innovation can deliver the successful outcome of a safe workplace when applied to creative imagery and
story-telling. A graphical representation utilising the mind map tool of the executive summary can be
found in Appendix.

Introduction
Individuals, organisations and entrepreneurs success is dependent on their understanding and
application of creativity and innovation. In an expansive literature base with complex and context driven
research, there is a need for simplification of definitions that would deliver the required platform from
which to launch. This paper will argue that in order for creativity and innovation to be successful, there
needs to be a consideration of their relationship. Furthermore, whether one can exist without the other
and if it does, will it achieve its full potential? In order to explore these issues, this paper will first define
creativity and innovation and their connection. This will be followed by discussing both the thinking
styles required to develop creative ideas and their application within the invention, innovation and
entrepreneurship. Additionally, how independent and organisational entrepreneurs freedom impacts on
their ability to deliver a successful outcome. Moreover, how deliberate creative thinking can focus
thinking and enhance innovative results. To end with, a case study applied in a local government setting
that demonstrates how creativity and innovation can deliver the successful outcome of a safe
workplace.

Definition of creativity and innovation

In industry and business alike, the terms creativity and innovation are used somewhat interchangeably.
However, this may be due to the abundant and equally ambiguous number of definitions relating to the
topic of creativity and innovation in the literature. For instance, a simple search using the Federation
University linked Google Scholar with the term ‘creativity and innovation definition’ yielded more than
800,000 results. Although extensive, it is apparent that this could mainly be due to the complexity and
expansive nature of creativity itself let alone innovation. Drawing on the myriad of disciplines purporting
a definition of creativity from social / cognitive psychology to business management and more recently
neuroscience, it would appear that each definition is context driven. This is due respectively as a result
of the desired hypothesis from identifying sources of creativity to its application and more recently how
creative thinking processes can be mapped in the brain. Teresa Amabile in her seminal work in 1980’s in
the field of social psychology may well have developed a definition of creativity that meets this broad
application need; it refers to ‘the production of novel, useful ideas or problem solutions’ and suggests
that it is a mutually collective process of ‘idea generation/problem solving and the actual solution
created’ (1983; 1988). Furthermore, the task of defining innovation is not dissimilar according to
Fagerberg (2004), who argues that ‘no single discipline deals with all aspects of innovation’ (p.2). This
postulation provided the basis for research completed by Baregheh, Rowley & Sambrook 2009) who
as a result, created a multi-disciplinary definition of innovation that is
congruent
with that of Amabile’s for creativity and states: “innovation is the multi-stage
process
whereby organisations (or entrepreneurs) transform ideas into new/improved
products,
service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves in
their
marketplace” (p.1334). For the purposes of this paper, a streamlined
delineation can be
presented as creativity is the process of idea generation (novel and useful);
whereas,
innovation is the distilling, refining and implementation of the idea.

Difference between creativity and innovation

It could be argued that creativity and innovation could be inextricably linked through the concept of
ideas. However, they are not synonymous and have a distinct difference in their application. Creativity is
a skill that ‘can be developed’ and is the construct of ‘prior knowledge’ into the formulation of a novel
sequence that has not been done before (Robinson, 2011). According to Yusuf (2008), it is the “creative
act that is the basis of an innovation” (p. 2). It could be argued that this gives rise to a false sense of
significant value to many forms of creativity. Although creativity is vital to achievement, not all creative
ideas are innovations that result in a successful outcome; and juxtaposed, without creativity innovation
simply would not exist. In order to develop a creative idea into a successful innovation, the idea must be
commercially viable and therefore able to deliver a competitive advantage (Shalley, Hitt & Zhou, 2015).
Furthermore, the basis of the advantage according to Gilson & Madjar (2011) generally comes via
incremental variations, with modifications to existing processes; or the less frequent offering of radical
changes of significant discovery that revolutionises the current paradigm. Consequently, in order to
develop and identify which creative ideas provide the necessary elements to deliver a productive
benefit, individuals, organisations and entrepreneurs need to engage different thinking styles
throughout the innovation process.

Where creativity ends and where innovation starts

Discussions about innovation are often made difficult because people are unclear about the exact meanings of some key terms. In particular there is confusion
about the difference between creativity, innovation and invention. Let us start with some definitions:
Creativity is the capability or act of conceiving something original or unusual
Innovation is the implementation of something new.
Invention is the creation of something that has never been made before and is recognized as the product of some unique insight.
If you have a brainstorm meeting and dream up dozens of new ideas then you have displayed creativity but there is no innovation until something gets
implemented. Somebody has to take a risk and deliver something for a creative idea to be turned into an innovation. An invention might be a product or device or
method that has never existed before. So every invention is an innovation. But every innovation is not an invention. When your company first published its website
that was a major innovation for the company even though many other websites already existed.
We tend to think of an innovation as a new product but you can innovate with a new process, method, business model, partnership, route to market or marketing
method. Indeed every aspect of your business operation is a candidate for innovation. Peter Drucker said, ‘Every organisation must prepare for the abandonment
of everything it does.’ So do not restrict your vision of innovation to products. Some of the most powerful innovations you can make are in business methods and
customer services. If we look at companies like Dell, eBay and Amazon we see that their great innovations were with their business models rather than in new
products.
Innovations can be incremental or radical. Every improvement that you make in products or services can be seen as an incremental innovation. Most businesses
and most managers are good at incremental innovation. They see problems in the current set-up and they fix them. Radical innovations involve finding an entirely
new way to do things. As such they are often risky and difficult to implement. Most larger organisations and most managers are poor at radical innovation. If you
had been making LP records then you could have introduced incremental innovations in your design and marketing. However if this was your strategy then a
radical innovation, the CD, would eventually kill you. The CD manufacturer could similarly introduce various incremental improvements. Once again a radical
innovation, music downloads over the internet, would make your offering obsolete. So we need to constantly look for incremental innovations and radical
innovations. We need to develop creativity and turn it quickly into innovation.

Can creativity and innovation sustain without each other

Without creativity there’s no innovation, and without innovation there’s no creativity. Innovation
means finding new ways for businesses to make more money. Innovation is
a type of creativity, in fact he says it is the best type of creativity.
Because without innovative creativity, iPhones would still be
empty and nobody would have thought to start developing
thousands of fun apps. reativity” is not the miraculous road to business growth
and affluence that is so abundantly claimed these days. And for the line manager,
particularly, it may be more of a millstone than a milestone. Those who extol the
liberating virtues of corporate creativity over the somnambulistic vices of corporate
conformity may actually be giving advice that in the end will reduce the creative
animation of business. This is because they tend to confuse the getting of ideas with
their implementation—that is, confuse creativity in the abstract with practical
innovation; not understand the operating executive’s day-to-day problems; and
underestimate the intricate complexity of business organizations.
The trouble with much of the advice business is getting today about the need to be
more vigorously creative is, essentially, that its advocates have generally failed to
distinguish between the relatively easy process of being creative in the abstract and the
infinitely more difficult process of being innovationist in the concrete. Indeed, they
misdefine “creativity” itself. Too often, for them, “creativity” means having great,
original ideas. Their emphasis is almost all on the thoughts themselves. Moreover, the
ideas are often judged more by their novelty than by their potential usefulness, either to
consumers or to the company. In this article, I shall show that in most cases, having a
new idea can be “creative” in the abstract but destructive in actual operation, and that
often instead of helping a company, it will even hinder it.

Entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation

Are inventions real or just another synonym of an innovation? From the literature it could be perceived
that historically inventions were either developed through a ‘flash of genius’ or by creative inventors
who developed ideas and not the myth of historical story telling (Roberts, 2007; Drucker, 2006, Berkun,
2010). Despite the attraction to the one big idea coming with a flash, Roberts (2007) argues that
inventions and innovations are distinctly different: an invention is the “development of an idea….and the
conversion into a useful application”; whereas; innovation is the total sum of an invention with the
addition of exploitation (p.36). However, Drucker (2006) was of the contention that innovation is just a
tool or instrument used by entrepreneurs to exploit change as an opportunity. Furthermore, he argued
that “entrepreneurs utilise systematic innovation for purposeful and organised search for changes, and
in the systematic analysis of opportunities that might offer economic or social innovation” (p. 35).
Therefore, like thinking styles required for creativity, entrepreneurship is a discipline that is capable of
being learned, as well as practiced.

Examples of creative people, organizations and product/service: What

makes them different?

Idea generation and selection are specifically unique functions in the innovation process and require
thinking styles that support each objective, namely divergent and convergent thinking. The purpose of
divergent thinking, according to Cropley (2006), is a process to generate as many different ideas in an
open-ended manner about the topic or problem into ‘unexpected forms’; and will vary substantially
from individual to individual or through teams into “often novel and unusual and surprising” (p. 392). By
contrast, Carson (2010) argues that convergent thinking is oriented toward “directing all of one’s
knowledge toward a problem that has a singular and specific solution” (p. 55). Convergent thinking
‘emphasizes speed, accuracy and logic’; and identifies recognisable patterns by applying methods to
achieve the goal of manipulating or increase current knowledge (Cropley, 2006). Furthermore, the
ability to transition between thinking styles is an important factor in the development of an idea into an
innovation. Ideas will go through many phases of development and assessment prior to implementation,
switching focus multiple times between thinking styles through the iterative process. Carson (2010)
speaks of ‘the ability to transition between thinking styles as cognitive flexibility’ and as a skill that can
be learned. The research also suggests that creative individuals are able to transition between thinking
styles with great ease more so than those with lower levels of creativity (Zabelina & Robinson, 2010).
According to Ratey & Hagerman (2008), the benefit to the individual who is able to transition between
phases improves the time and quality through a steady flow of creative ideas that are assessed for
viability ‘on the go’. Furthermore, Ratey and Hagerman (2008) quote an experiment where cognitive
flexibility was able to be improved after just one thirty-five minute treadmill session at 60 – 70 per cent
of maximum heart rate (p. 54). An effect is created following exercise due to increases in blood flow that
releases a neurotransmitter called brain-derived neurotropic factor that is linked to neurogenesis and
increase the individual’s capacity for learning and connecting ideas (p.51) (see Figure 1. in Appendix).
The experiment identified that individuals (including managers studying an MBA) who have a highly
cognitive task to be undertaken would benefit going for a short workout that increases the opportunities
for creating ideas that lead to successful innovations.

Creativity and innovative organization, corporate culture product and

service
Creative thinking means looking at something in a new way. It is the very definition of “thinking outside
the box.” Often, creativity in this sense involves what is called lateral thinking, or the ability to perceive
patterns that are not obvious. The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes uses lateral thinking in one
famous story when he realizes that a dog not barking is an important clue in a murder case. Creative
people have the ability to devise new ways to carry out tasks, solve problems, and meet challenges.
They bring a fresh, and sometimes unorthodox, perspective to their work. This way of thinking can help
departments and organizations move in more productive directions. For these reasons, they are
extremely valuable to a company. Some people are naturally more creative than others, but creative
thinking can be strengthened with practice. You can develop creative thinking by solving riddles, being
aware of (and letting go of) your assumptions, and through play. Play connotes anything unstructured
and relaxing such as daydreaming. Some job descriptions state that creative thinking is required for
the position. However, many employers want creative thinkers even though they haven't
articulated it. In either case, think about how your creative nature has helped you in the past and
how it might be an asset in the job you're seeking.

Nexus of creativity, creative people and business

Creativity and innovation are the driving forces behind new and unique ideas for improving
existing process, identifying totally different solutions to problems, developing novel products or
services, identifying and establishing new and novel platforms for ideas that were not conceived
of before. Despite our apparent similarities based on our genetics, our individual experiences
lead each of us to think differently. The diversity of ideas and solutions in any society are the
collective product of its individuls’ unique experiences. Some of these ideas can cross the nexus
to the next step of entrepreneurship, which translates ideas into desirable products and services.
Successful entrepreneurship generates financial rewards, and this fact offers incentives for
creative minds to participate in this step of the process. This chapter will explore the role of
creativity, innovation and the importance of entrepreneurship to translate ideas into desirable
products for the society.

Should we try to find and hire creative geniuses?

Every business leader loves to wax philosophic on the need for creativity. It’s a word that
spans meanings and industries, and–like any popular buzzword–can easily lose its meaning.
This isn’t to say that the world doesn’t have room for creative geniuses, or that they aren’t
helpful to organizations. It’s just that they generally operate at a different pace than others.
“Creativity innovation is such a rich ecosystem–and there’s certainly room for individual
artists. But what distinguishes individual artists who may not work well in a group “is how
they’re driven.” The problem is most of us are missing it—all the beauty and power creativity
has to bring into our lives because we’re waiting for permission or for a paycheck or for some
big social media following to do our creative work. The problem is that if you wait for
permission or a paycheck to do your creative work, it’s no longer YOUR creative work. I don’t
mean to say that some people don’t make a living doing creative things, but anyone who
works in a creative field can tell you that the minute you start making money for your creative
work, things change. Now you’re not answering to your creativity anymore. You’re answering
to the marketplace. To your customers. To your “boss” (whatever that looks like). That’s not
bad. It’s just not ART. It’s business. Again, nothing wrong with either of these things. But I
think we need to distinguish between the two, since one will pay your rent and keep the lights
on and grow your skillset and if you’re really lucky, might even send you on a vacation or two.

Should we reward creativity and innovation and if so how might we do

that?
Highly successful organizations don’t just have a performance culture; they have a culture of innovation.  In fact, you
really can’t have one without the other.  Without new product development, market expansion, customer experience
transformation and other hallmarks of committed innovators, businesses experience an erosion of confidence—and
diminished employee performance soon follows.  So, how do you pay people in a way that fuels the cycles of creative
output you need?

The error most organizations make in trying to answer that question is confusing innovation rewards with trying to
incentivize motivation.  This happens because most studies and literature conflate the two.  Those reporting on the
research suggest that incentives don’t improve motivation; in fact, they often diminish it.  Some reports have
extended that same conclusion to paying for innovation.  This is a mistake.  While related, they are separate issues. 
In addition, most of the studies on motivation and incentives are performed by psychologists who conduct interviews
instead of looking at data in a real business environment where rewards and employee performance results can be
assessed objectively in real time. In short, incentives and innovation do not have to be enemies.  They can co-exist. 

So let’s unpack this critical issue and see what we can glean from the studies and reports that have been conducted. 
Then let’s apply a practical analysis to what the “experts” are saying and see if we can chart a course that works in
real life. 
Micro and Macro Innovation

As a starting point, we need to define the two types of innovation you likely want to encourage in your business.  One
is the somewhat routine “idea sharing” you want all of your employees to engage in—particularly as it relates to the
customer or client experience.  Let’s call that “micro” innovation.  It is important and useful but not necessarily
transformational (although some “mega ideas” are given birth this way).

The other type of innovation is catalytic in nature.  It is those ideas that significantly alter the trajectory of your
business. Let's call this macro innovation.  It comes from talent that has unique abilities and insights; typically people
who are more entrepreneurial in nature.  There is high competition for this kind of talent because it is in such
demand.  This forces every organization to maximize the innovation and performance of the marginal talent available
to them.

Rewarding Micro Innovation

In looking at a study conducted within a large Asian information technology services company in 2010, a Harvard
Business Review article drew the conclusion that “financial rewards make people suggest fewer but better ideas.”  

Analyzing the data from before, during, and after the experiment, the authors found that when rewards were
introduced, more people participated, but there were fewer submissions per person, and these were higher quality
ideas — meaning they were more likely to be shared with a client or implemented, or they had a high estimated
profitability — than those from people who weren’t offered rewards. Employees at all levels were able to come up
with valuable new ideas. The authors said the fewer ideas per employee couldn’t be explained by motivational
crowding out, or the idea that extrinsic motivators (money) undermine intrinsic motivation. Instead, offering pay for
accepted ideas seemed to focus people on producing better ones.

“It is often argued that incentives ‘crowd out’ intrinsic motivation, but we found the opposite,” said Gibbs. “Our view is
that this issue is often misunderstood. Incentives can easily undermine intrinsic motivation, including creativity, if they
reward the wrong outcomes or behaviors. But if they reward the right ones, they certainly can reinforce creativity.”
(Financial Rewards Make People Suggest Fewer but Better Rewards, Harvard Business Journal, May 2015 Issue,
Nicole Torres)

Personal Reflection
The City of Name Changed (Council) employs approximately 820 full-time, part-time and temporary staff
(City of Name Changed, 2015) in varied and diverse roles such as administration, health care,
building/asset maintenance, parks and environment and event management to name just a few in order
to serve the needs of the community. The duties associated with these roles can be physically and
mentally demanding in nature and as a consequence can result in work-related injuries. The number of
injuries varies from time to time and is reported on a quarterly basis to the Corporate Safety Committee
that includes the Chief Executive Officer and Leadership Team. For a number of years the injury statistics
have remained constant with approximately 30 claims for workers compensation per year and up to 15
employees either off work or on a return to work program. Although discussed at length during these
meetings, no focus or leadership was demonstrated to seek the root cause and implement strategies to
eliminate them from recurring. The problem ‘how do we change the mindset of the committee’ was
then used during facilitation of two different focus groups, where brainstorming and mind mapping was
used. A distinctly creative and innovative idea emerged that entailed presenting the current statistics in
a new and novel form that would generate a lasting impression. The resultant outcome was a 1200mm x
900mm core flute representation of the workforce made out of 849 colourful jelly babies; with the
exception of 88 brown jelly babies in a cross over the chest (see Figure 4. in Appendix). The innovative
masterpiece was then positioned at the head of the table along with bags containing five jelly babies in
front of each member. The image and lolly bags represented highlighted the story injuries to council
employees over the preceding three years. The 88 jelly babies represented how many employees
council had hurt. In addition, the 5 jelly baby lolly bags represented the equivalent number of staff
absent over the same period due to the severity of the injury with corresponding labels for each
Director. For example, this is your HR department, Account Payable team and alike. Interestingly, once
this data was presented in this manner, it caused an outcry by the Leadership Team and enabled
significant change in the way we manage safety to prevent injuries. As a result of this creative
innovation, focussed leadership led by the leadership team produced key performance measures that
were included in every employee’s position description. Managers were held accountable and as
consequence, injury rates fell by more than half and lost time is less than 20 per cent than at the time of
intervention. Exploring the case study and applying the theory developed identified that the different
presentation of the data was the creative act and the way the story was delivered was the innovation.
The use of stories to create innovative opportunities was an additional insight not previously identified.
Heath & Heath (2008) call this type of creative innovation, ‘sticky messaging’. They further elaborate
that for a message to be sticky and create changes in thought and behaviour they need to be
‘understandable, memorable and effective’.

Conclusion

Creativity and innovation is critical for individuals, organisations and entrepreneur’s

to be successful. From the literature, creativity is the process of idea generation
(novel and useful); whereas, innovation implementation of the idea. However linked
by the concept of an idea, one cannot be successful without the other. It was
identified that the way creative ideas are generated and honed into innovations is
an iterative process through divergent and convergent thinking styles and
successfully transitioning between them is thought to be achieved by more creative
individuals. Furthermore, this can skill can be learned and enhanced through
exercise that increases blood flow in the brain. The outcome of the creative process
leads to inventions and innovations that entrepreneurs identify through
opportunities that can be leveraged successfully for social or economic gain either
independently or within organisations. In conclusion, deliberate creative thinking
was explored where it showed that focussed thinking through the use of tools such
as mind maps and six thinking hats can lead to enhance innovative results. Finally,
a case study was applied in a local government setting where the author
demonstrated how creativity and innovation can deliver the successful outcome of a
safe workplace when applied to creative imagery and story-telling.