Whose creativity is a priority at a creativity conference?

Conference

Fran is at a waterfront hotel at a conference promising to show people how to create, innovate and lead change, one she’s attended annually for more than half of her life when spring reveals summer’s promise.

Creativity and innovation are her passion and business. It’s more than a mind thing to Fran, creativity is life; it’s vitalizing.  It’s unfortunate that the five half-day program she chose for the week is not.

Waiting

She is waiting for new information, enlightenment, something worthwhile to capture insights of heightened awareness into her little red notebook. New thinking, new thinkers is the title of the program. Its promise: a dialogue with people who are breaking new ground and exploring new ideas and research learnings in deliberate creativity and creative thinking.

The room has no windows, one media projector, and twelve people sitting around a large conference donut shaped table. The air is stifling, musty, old.

Bulldozed

Fran listens to men show their creativity processes and research. She feels like a once still and deep mist-covered pond in a rain forest being cleared. Each statement disturbs the creativity landscape, stirs the bottom silt. There is no time to process the new ideas, for them to re-settle anew before another bulldozer unloads it’s pushing.

One presenter after the next offers insights into momentary creativity, transformational leadership, patterns of education that influence thinking, creative processes. The agenda provides time for presenters to give and is not geared for the participants to receive. Fran’s creativity isn’t sparked that way.  She waits.

Language

One steely haired creativity practitioner speaks, eye-glass frames bright red, stressing best decisions are not made through voting. He says other more effective methods exist.

He highlights the stages in his productive thinking process, emphasizing the importance of using clear language to describe the kind of thinking required in each one.

  • What’s going on?
  • What’s success?
  • What’s the question?
  • Generate answers
  • Forge the solution
  • Align resources

Regardless of focus, each stage has a simple internal process: Groups generate options, then select the best from the list.

“How do you arrive at the best one to select?” a participant asks.

“By voting,” he replies. He catches his breath, a tinge of crimson crosses his cheeks and  his posture dips to a near imperceptible slump before regaining his pace.

Make it Simple

Another bespectacled practitioner, this one with a research background, tells the class that four thinking styles are used in getting effective results.

  • Generation (problem finding and fact finding)
  • Problem conceptualization (problem definition and idea finding)
  • Optimizing solutions (evaluation and solution finding, and action planning)
  • Implementing results (gaining acceptance and action)

His process is unique, he insists, because it integrates the styles into his applied creative thinking method.

A participant asks, “How is this different from other models that do the same?”

“They don’t,” he replies, meaning, mine is the only one that integrates personal styles for applied creativity.

Metacognition Saves

A third white male, this one a researcher, younger, shows his work on transcendental leadership, required, he says, for creative progress.

His research into leadership shows three kinds, 3T’s:

  1. Transactional (do this for me and I’ll give you something)
  2. Transformational (the stakeholders or constituents grow)
  3. Transcendent (it benefits the larger community)

To achieve transcendental leadership leaders must think about what they are thinking about, how their actions connect to all things in the web of life.  To do that, the presenter continues, leaders must be authentic.

“Why is it important to think about what I’m thinking about?” a participant asks.  “Wouldn’t that get in the way of me actually doing something?”

“You don’t understand metacognition. Let me explain it to you later,” he replies, meaning, you’ll be a lost soul if you don’t.

Fran wonders if the presenter uses metacognition himself.  Half his allotted time is used apologizing for the state of his Powerpoint presentation and talking through his credentials.

Creativity Can be Lost in a Repeated Moment

How teachers respond to students’ unexpected responses to questions influences their confidence in creativity and hinders their participation.  Speaking from a distance, present in live stream and Powerpoint here is another male researcher. He studies small moments that impact each life.

Here’s a sample pattern: IRE

  • Teacher initiates a question
  • One student at a time responds
  • Teacher evaluates what the student says

When an unexpected student response arises, the teacher more often than not bats it away because it is not on the curriculum and there is no time for considering it.

After years of this behaviour, students learn to play intellectual hide and seek. They wait for others to comment than risk negative or off-putting attention. Their unique responses are buried, their curiosity dulled.  The notion that the teacher has the right answer and theirs is wrong unless it is the same as the teachers is reinforced in classroom experiences throughout their schooling.

He recommends an adjustment to the IRE process outlined to replace students fear of risking or being wrong above to this: IREE

  • Teacher initiates a question
  • One student at a time responds
  • Teacher explores the thinking behind the unexpected response
  • Teacher evaluates what the student says

“Does this IRE fear-based pattern translate into people’s behaviours after they leave school?” a participant asks.

“They become expert at it by the time they reach 6th grade,” he responds. “They practice and perfect the behaviour during the 12,000+ hours spent in primary and middle school.”

Kinds of Creativity

Ascertaining creativity categories is the work of another distance presenting male researcher. He itemizes these domains before showing his work on how avatars influence online brainstorming in platforms like Second Life.

  • Mini c creativity: personally meaningful
  • Little c creativity: ordinary creativity that others will appreciate
  • Pro c creativity: using one’s creativity as a career
  • Big c creativity: revolutionizes the way people experience life

He then provides evidence that avatars tend to interfere with participants’ idea generation. Texting ideas without avatars present is more effective in his research.

“I wonder how distracting it is for people to brainstorm with others in a live face-to-face group,” Fran wonders aloud.

“There’s a lot of new research saying that personal brainstorming can be more effective than group efforts,” the workshop co-ordinator replies. He doesn’t ask to find out what thinking lies beneath her unexpected question.  There isn’t time.

Note: Links to the content mentioned are available upon request.  The names of the presenters have been withheld out of respect of their work.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Like This!

About marcisegal

Founder, World Creativity and Innovation Day, April 21. Speaker,
This entry was posted in creative thinking, creativity general, personality_type and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Whose creativity is a priority at a creativity conference?

  1. It’s one thing to “teach” it.

    It’s quite another thing to “learn” it.

    It’s a WHOLE other thing to actually DO it. So many people I know are too busy in the teaching or learning that they don’t actually get down to accomplishing any creative act. I used to tell my kids, “Get your butt off the couch watching those videos! It’s time to create your own.” Guess what? They did. It’s all about having in place a supportive group, atmosphere or environment that feeds the need.

  2. marcisegal says:

    Interesting point Alan. I wonder what the integration of sage and guide would be, look like, and behave and, if there’s room in well-patterned mindsets to allow for this innovation.

    Watch for the next post on the closing session….

    • Alan says:

      CPSI to me was 200+ guides, friends, peers, colleagues, sharing with the new people while mostly guiding rather than playing expert. The funny thing most of those 200 were EXPERTS, SENSIIs, SAGES, GIANTS yet many were humble and focused on bringing out not simply performing for or dumping on.

      Dr. T., Sid, Ruth, Moe, Jack, John, Bob and so many more.

      Oh there were the featured ones with their specific talents, models, ideas, concepts too: Swami, John, Bill, Jon, Gil and others

      At the same time they were members of the ever-growing community/family/movement not simply EXPERTS brought in from the outside.

  3. Alan says:

    sounds like 4 SAGES ON THE STAGE and ONE IN THE WINGS VIA THE INTERNET. rather than GUIDES BY THE SIDE.

    Marci, you and I and our 10 classmates in 1979 were taught differently.

  4. Alan says:

    interesting “real” assessment of a CREATIVITY CONFERENCE session.

    it differs from another person’s (a creativity consultant) reaction to the session.

    hmm? people who talk about creativity yet seldom are actually creative themselves in their personal lives, professional lives, careers or simply in their lives

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s