This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
In 2008, financial crisis has huge impact around the world, world stock markets have fallen, many large institutions have bankrupted or took over by other companies, and governments in even the wealthiest countries have had to deal with rescue packages to bail out their financial systems ( Anup Shah, 2010), include United states, the UK, Italy and Japan. In times of crisis, such as the one effected in Europe, new ideas created to manage and organise the new businesses, jobs and the protection of personal well-being.
The purpose of this essay is relation between social and organisational creativity, how creativity bring the change and innovation to new companies and management, help them to grow business, also inspire people and society. A case study from Apple, one of the best creative corporation in the world. Steve jobs was the most innovative person who has completely changed the view of personal computer. There are many artistic and scientific creations emerge from joint thinking, shared struggles from different people, and passionate conversations, emphasizing the importance of the social dimension of creativity (Bennis & Biederman, 1997; John Steiner, 2000).
Concept of creativity
Creativity is the production of new and useful ideas, products, services, processes or strategies and to bring thing new into being. Also can be perceived as: given by divine being, emanates from outside humans, come from within human, individual creativity. Creativity includes four essential attributes, originality, expression, social evaluation and social appreciation within a community. Creativity is a source of competitive advantage, multi-dimensional: technological, economic, artistic, and cultural. Cannot be switched on /off at predetermined times; it is an odd mixture of work and play, largely driven by intrinsic awards, tension between creativity and organisation: stifling creativity. Creativity - a Brief Characterization historical creativity = ideas and discoveries that are fundamentally novel with respect to the whole of human history psychological creativity = ideas and discoveries in everyday work practice that are novel with respect to an individual human mind or social community - a capacity inherent to varying degrees in all people
- needed in most problem-solving situations - knowledge workers and designers have to engage in creative activities to cope. With the unforeseen complexities of real world tasks
Individual versus and social creativity
Social: rodin's sculpture the thinker dominates our collective imagination as the purest form of human inquiry - the lone, stoic thinker - the reality is that scientific and artistic forms emerge from the joint thinking, passionate conversations, and shared struggles.
individual human collaboration is not only needed but central to social creativity, individuals participation in collaborative inquiry and creation, need the individual reflective time depicted by rodin's sculpture- without such reflection it is difficult to think about contributions to social creativity.
Creative individuals can make a huge difference for example: movie directors, champions of sports teams and leading scientists and politicians. Individual knowledge, imagination, inspiration and innovation are the basis for social creativity. But: an idea or product that deserves the label creative arises from the synergy of many sources and not only from the mind of a single person (Csikszentmihalyi). Individual creativity comes from the unique perspective that the individual brings to bear in the current problem or situation. It is the result of the life experience, culture education, and background knowledge of the individual, as well as the individual's personal interest associated with particular situation. Individual creativity, however, has limits. In today's society the leonardesqueaspiration to have people who are competent in all of science has to fail because the individual human mind is limited (Campbell, 1969; shneiderman, 2002).
Social creativity, the renaissance scholar (who knows "everything") does not exist anymore. The individual, unaided human mind is limited, the great individual replaced by great group/ community. Rather mutual appreciation, efforts to understand each other, increase in socially shared cognition and practice. Stakeholders solving a complex problem cannot guarantee that their knowledge is superior or more complete compared to other people's knowledge is superior or more complete compared to other people's knowledge to overcome the symmetry of ignorance, activate as much knowledge from as many stakeholders as possible. . Creative activity grows out of the relationship between an individual and the world of his or her work, as well as from the ties between an individual and other human beings. Much human creativity arises from activities that take place in a social context in which interaction with other people and the artifacts that embody group knowledge are important contributors to the process. Creativity does not happen inside a person's head, but in the interaction between a person's thoughts and a socio-cultural context (csikszentmihallyi, 1996).
Integrating individual and social creativity. Objective: the smooth integration of individual and social creativity; individual creativity drives social creativity, and social creativity triggers further individual creativity. Our work is grounded in the basic belief that there is an "and" and not a versus relationship between individual and social creativity. Creativity occurs in the relationship between an individual and society, and between an individual and his or her technical environment . the mind rather than driving on solitude is clearly dependent upon the reflection, renewal, and trust inherent in sustained human relationships ( John-steiner, 2000). We need ato support this distributed fabric of interactions by integrating diversity, making all voices heard, increasing the back talk of the situation, and providing systems that are open and transparent, so that people can be aware of and access each other's work, relate it to their own work, transcend the information given, and contribut the results back to the community. This process is illustrated (in part at least) by the location, comprehension, and modification cycle in software reuse (Fischer et al., 1991), the collect/relate/create/donate model (shneiderman, 2002), and by the decentralized development process of open source communities (scharff, 2002).
Individual and social creativity can be integrated by means of proper collaboration models, appropriate community structures, boundary objects, process models in support of natural evolution of artifacts, and meta-design. By integrating individual and social creativity, support will be provided not only for reflective practitioners but also for reflective communities. Even within disciplines, disciplinary competence is not achieved in individual minds, but as a collective achievement made possible by the overlap of narrow specialties (levy & murnane, 2004).
Individual and social creativity, social creativity does not necessitate the development of environments in which the interests of the many inevitably supersede those of the individual. Individuality makes a difference. And organizations get their strength to a large extent from the creativity and engagement of their individual members. Appropriate socio-technical settings, at the same time, can amplify the outcome of a group of creative people by both augmenting individual creativities and multiplying rather than simply summing up individual creativities (Fischer et al., 2005)
Communities of practise. Architects, urban planners, research groups, software developers, software users, kitchen designers, computer network designer. Masters and apprentices legitimate peripheral participation develop a notion of belonging. Problems: group think, when people work together too closely in communities, they sometimes suffer illusions of righteousness and invincibility. Communities of interest brings together different communities of practice to solve a problem. Membership is defined by a shared interest in the framing and resolution of a problem. Diverse cultures, people from academia and from industry, software designers and software users, students and researchers from around the world. Fundamental challenges: establish common ground, build a shared understanding of the task at hand. Learn to communicate with others who have a different perspective. Primary goal: integrating diversity and making all voices heard.
Art and creative training in organisations. Combining business environment with art such as theatre, pantomime, painting, sculpture, dance to overcome our limited perception and barriers of communication, and free our tensed body language in order to improve efficiency and profit. It shows how our body behaves in work environments, stressful situations and makes us aware of our body language during interpersonal contact. Enables us to control and shape the communication with others.
Example: body language. Over 50% of conversation is received by sight 38% is sound and only 7% are the actual words. 35% of face to face conversation is done through verbal speech 65% is done through body language (Mehrabian (n.d.) in pease 2004). We distinguish 11,000 different sounds and see up to 35,000 different colours, but we can only process 7 information at each time. (Corsun et al., 2006).
What is social creativity?
ï® It is creativity that emerges from a context in which practices
and discourses play a key role. The space between those in
dialogue within which interactions happen is the crucible of
ï® It is creativity that is based in systemic dynamics.
ï® It is creativity that is sustained and distributed nature, which
does not reside in a single cognitive or personality process,
does not occur at any single point in time, does not happen at
any particular place, and is not the product of a single individual.
ï® Characteristics: problem finding, flexibility, fluency, novelty /
Values Associated with
ï® Values embedded in the culture of the
system that act as the ideological glue
that tie people to the system:
ï® "groupism" (collectivism, subordination
of personal goals to in-group goals, and
ï® consensus, harmony, and cooperation
ï® valuing collaboration and plurality /
ï® creation of a safe environment for risktaking,
play, and experimentation
ï® valuing inclusion of all members in the
ï® fairness / egalitarianism, tolerance,
ï® sharing information freely
ï® emphasis on quality products or
ï® Contextual values, especially those
that regulate and influence
ï® trust and acceptance
ï® willingness to listen for understanding
ï® friendliness, supportiveness, and a
spirit of cooperation
ï® confrontation of conflict and a lack of
ï® respect, flexibility, and openness
ï® inclusive approaches to others and an
acceptance of "deviant" behavior
ï® ability to consider ideas that contradict
one's own, and when appropriate, to
admit their superiority
Critical thinking: ability to consider ideas that contradict one's own, and
when appropriate, to admit their superiority, willingness to listen for
ï® Challenge: confrontation of conflict and a lack of defensiveness
ï® Enjoyment: play
ï® Ethical Behavior: integrity, tolerance, openness
ï® Warm Relationships: harmony, trust, acceptance, friendliness,
ï® Fairness and Equity: inclusiveness,
ï® Risk taking
ï® Working in a team: collectivism, cooperation, collaboration, consensus,
plurality / mutuality; adaptability, sharing information
ï® Variety: experimentation
Implications for Practice
ï® The importance of classroom "climate"
ï® Explicit links between behavior [teaching
practice] and beliefs [values]
ï® Conditional Style of Inquiry for promoting
classrooms as socially creative systems:
nurtures the ability of flexible formulation and
reformulation of problems and allows a student:
ï® to process information with some uncertainty, as if it could be true rather than
as if it is true; and
ï® to be susceptible to alternative interpretations and novel responses
"bounded instability" (Stacey, 1999) where structures, behaviors, cognition, and meanings are
in a state of both being stable (formulated) and unstable (flexible and subject to
Creativity in Google
Google supports its staff to spend one day a week, and every week to do their own projects. This special strategy encourages colleagues bring creative ideas to the work. So there's a new consensus at Google that too few of their one-day-a-week ideas are turning into blockbusters.
As a result, Google is the world leading search Engine Company.
Another way Google is addressing the problem is to give a few engineers, with extremely promising ideas, even more than one day a week-in some cases, giving them full-time to work on their idea.Â The new collaboration tool, Google Wave, resulted when two brothers in Australia were told to go all-out on their idea, a new communication system to replace email.Â Top leaders also assigned the two brothers dozens of employees.
Now that's something you wouldn't get if you left the company with your idea-unless you got some very deep-pocketed venture capitalists to fund you.Â That's a good argument to stay at Google; as CEO Eric Schmidt puts it, to be "part of a start-up within Google."Â But it can't happen without adding some structure, criteria, and resource allocation mechanisms to their innovation process. In addition, Google welcomes comments about said apps so it can determine whether to develop them further or just let them die. It's called Google Labs, and it's where Google Goggles and Google Maps were developed. A number of cool ideas are incubating there right now, and I'm sure more will be forthcoming tomorrow.
In all my years, I've never seen an idea get demonstrably better by studying it. On the contrary, I've seen ideas get worse â€¦ then better again â€¦ then split down the middle. I know ideas are processed into pulp so that everyone can digest them. But in that process, the fire goes out. We are left with a dull ember quickly extinguished in the relentless gush of popular culture. Intuitively, we know this is true, yet testing is standard operating procedure. We start with diamonds and process them into coal. It's backwards!
Until, that is, someone like Google says: Cool idea! Let's see what people think. If there's a problem, we'll fix it. If something sucks, we'll move on.
Google actually has faith in its creative department and, more importantly, in the consumer. No fear.
Oh, I hear the arguments. I say we can't afford to be afraid of being wrong. Yet, no one listens to the emotional creative guy. He or she is a tempest in a teapot, more worried about artistic expression than business results. Okay, listen to Google then. It knows something about results.
to achieve and support social creativity is not only a technical problem; it requires new cultures and new mindsets. Making all voices heard requires socio-technical environments that provide people with powerful media to express themselves and engage in personally meaningful activities. The complexity of design problems transcends the individual human mind by requiring the integration between individual and social creativity. Our work has only scratched the surface of exploiting the power of collective minds equipped with new media. The challenges of the complex problems that we all face make this approach not a luxury, but a necessity.
Can be carried out by