What is creativity? Is it the gift of thinking up wild, far-out ideas, or the ability to break with the old and forge something new? Most of us have, at some point, had the thought of starting our own business — of taking the plunge and being our own boss. Working for someone else can feel stifling, and not quite free enough; so why not try being the boss instead? A startup certainly calls for a clear head — for logical thinking that sizes up the state of the market — yet we cannot afford to overlook creative thinking either, the kind that takes an active stance and breaks out of the box. As Einstein once put it: “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere.” Sometimes, in our pursuit of the single right answer to a problem, we forget to uncover the many other possibilities. Perhaps you have been carrying a dream you have long hesitated to chase, or perhaps the urge to start a business has only just flickered into being. In this article, let us get to know creativity through the lens of psychology, and explore how to bring our creative powers to the market.
Creativity
In psychology, scholars consider creativity to consist of two major elements — originality and effectiveness (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Runco & Jaeger, 2012).
Originality can be understood as novelty — that which is new and fresh. A creative idea has a distinctiveness about it: it is uncommon, out of the ordinary, not run-of-the-mill.
Effectiveness can be understood as usefulness — that which works and is useful. A creative idea needs to be of use to people, or to solve a problem appropriately, rather than being mere pie in the sky.
Originality matters, of course, but it must be balanced with functionality before a product holds any value (American Psychological Association, 2003). An innovation must also fit its social context and the needs of the market. Take an example: during the height of the COVID-19 outbreak, everyone in Hong Kong had to wear a mask. Some businesses pulled out all the stops, designing masks of every kind — in different colour schemes, with different patterns and cartoon characters, even in limited-edition styles. Think back to the surgical masks of old, which came in only a few colours: light blue, white, green. The masks on the market now not only offer protective functions such as BFE and VFE > 99%, but can also be used to match an outfit, to add a sense of fashion and a little fun to daily life — drawing plenty of people to pay a higher price for a better-looking style. As you can see, your idea has to be special, but it also has to have its use.
Conjuring up an idea out of thin air is no easy feat. We can begin by drawing on empathy to frame our thinking: what kind of people are facing what kind of problems? Take a target group — office workers, university students, the elderly, and so on — what needs do they have in everyday life? We can set the scope of the problem, then observe what products the current market offers as solutions, and what limitations those products carry. In response to the shortcomings of existing products, we as would-be entrepreneurs can ask: what other, alternative approaches might we put forward?
Divergent thinking
Divergent thinking is closely linked to creativity (McCrae, 1987; Runco & Acar, 2012). Divergent thinking is an open mode of thinking: in the face of a single problem, you come up with multiple ways to solve it. In other words, you are free to associate and ideate, without having to settle on one absolute answer. By applying divergent thinking, we can reflect from many angles and many sides, build different proposals, and reshape our existing knowledge and experience at any moment to bring a new idea to life.
One way psychology measures divergent thinking is the alternative uses test (Guilford, 1967). The method is very simple: within a time limit, you take an object and think up as many uses for it as you can. Researchers then assess the responses along four dimensions, namely:
- originality — coming up with novel, distinctive approaches that differ from most people’s
- fluency — generating a large number of ideas quickly
- flexibility — coming up with different ideas from different angles
- elaboration — working out the details of each idea
Take a brick, for instance: what uses can you think of for it? Most people would think of using it to build a wall or a house, or to weigh something down. A more creative thought might be to use it to draw a right angle.
The opposite of divergent thinking is convergent thinking — that is, integrating the facts within our existing knowledge and experience, then using logical analysis to guide our train of thought from a problem towards one specific answer. This mode of thinking is the more cautious of the two: it asks us to fix on a goal, deliberate carefully, and arrive at the answer we are looking for.
When we are generating creative ideas, we need divergent thinking to discover different possibilities. And when we are making business decisions, we need convergent thinking to weigh them up soberly. Because traditional education leans towards the latter, we need to put extra work into honing the former when we throw ourselves into society and set up our own ventures. Next time you are thinking through a startup plan, you might ask yourself: how many different solutions can one problem have? And how many different problems can one solution address?
The 4 P’s of creativity
Beyond this, one psychologist proposed the theory of the “4 P’s of creativity” (Rhodes, 1961), offering a deeper understanding of what creativity involves and how it develops. The 4 P’s are:
Person — the creator, including their personality traits, attitudes and behaviour, self-concept, values, and so on.
Within psychology’s Big Five personality traits (Big Five Personality Traits), creativity is positively associated with openness to experience (openness) (Feist, 1998; Werner et al., 2014). In other words, a more creative person tends to have a richer imagination, greater aesthetic and emotional sensitivity, and a wider tolerance for differing values; they are inclined to think abstractly, to love the arts, to feel emotions intensely, and to accept differing opinions (McCrae & John, 1992). Have a think: are you an open person yourself?
Process — the process of creating, including the creator’s motivation, learning methods, modes of thinking, ways of communicating, and so on.
Psychologists hold that creativity is strongly linked to intrinsic motivation (Gardner, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi, 2008). Intrinsic motivation refers to the drive that comes from a person’s own interest in, or enjoyment of, the activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In other words, you do something because you like it, or because you find pleasure in the doing of it. Its opposite is extrinsic motivation — when you do something driven by some reward or benefit (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although both kinds of motivation can move us towards our goals, if you want to spark more creativity during your startup journey, it is worth beginning with the areas you are interested in and the places you enjoy.
Product — the product of creating, that is, the materials and goods through which the creator gives form to their ideas.
This relates to the originality and effectiveness mentioned above (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Some psychologists have also coined the term “functional creativity”, pointing out that creativity needs to achieve some social purpose effectively — that is, a product has a real, practical use in society and can bring value to people (Cropley & Cropley, 2010). These days, Human-centred Design and User-centred Design are very much in vogue in the market. If you are interested in designing new products, it is well worth reading up on the relevant theories.
Press (press) — the pressures on creating, which can be understood as the interactive relationship between the creator and their environment.
Psychological research indicates that socialization shapes a person’s creative development, with the factors involved including the physical environment, family upbringing, schooling, the workplace, cultural traditions, historical background, and more (Runco & Pagnani, 2011). Creators in different environments come to form different values, behavioural patterns, and ways of handling things. To spark creativity at work, we need an environment with a high degree of freedom — one that allows us to put forward novel, distinctive ideas, rather than encouraging us to fall in line or follow the crowd (conformity) (Amabile et al., 1996). Collaborators also need to support one another emotionally and socially, and to provide practically useful resources to move ideas forward (Amabile et al., 1996). If a work environment has too much surveillance, time pressure, and criticism, it will greatly dampen the creator’s creativity (Amabile et al., 2012). If you have the will to start a business, remember to build yourself a suitable environment and stack the conditions in your favour.
In closing
Tempted to make your startup dream a reality? Go on, let your creativity loose and give it a try. The author recently read a very interesting book, Steal Like an Artist by Austin Kleon. It points out that nothing is wholly, 100% original. The original products we see on the market are, in truth, all arrived at by referencing, analysing, and integrating the ideas of those who came before. What matters is whether you can draw — “steal”, in the book’s words — the useful and important elements from other people’s work, and build a new idea of your own. A novel, distinctive idea is, in fact, nurtured by the founders of startups drawing inspiration over the years from different philosophies and the early guidance of different companies’ founders. If you are set on starting a business, then beyond learning the theories of psychology, be sure to soak up knowledge from all sorts of other fields too!
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.
American Psychological Association. (2003, November 3). What exactly is creativity?. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/creativity
Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2010). Functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 301–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Csikszentmihalyi., M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (reprint). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1990).
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lifes of
Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. Am. Educ. Res. J. 5, 249.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1258.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity research journal, 24(1), 66-75.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Runco, M. A., & Pagnani, A. (2011). Psychological research on creativity. In J. Sefton-Green, P. P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of
Creative Learning (pp. 63–71). London: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Werner, C. H., Tang, M., Kruse, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Spörrle, M. (2014). The Chinese version of the revised creativity domain questionnaire (CDQ-R): First evidence for its factorial validity and systematic association with the big five. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4), 254–275.
Comments
No comments yet — share your thoughts.