Historical Barriers

5.1.1 Historical Barriers

 In the historical sense, the following examples might give reason for an individual or a society not to attempt the new, to seek another solution, to find a better way. From the ancient Greeks, for example, there was Plato maintaining that history repeats itself. He wrote so convincingly of the circles of civilizations repeating themselves that to many it has seemed futile to attempt any changes. Plato's concept would have us be totally fatalistic and powerless as individuals and as societies.

These are but a few examples of historical significance to illustrate external dominance over human thought. It is technological advances, in the recent past and in the present that leave average people feeling that they have little, if any, control over their own lives.

Biological Barriers

5.1.2 Biological Barriers

 From a biological point of view, some scholars insist that creative ability is a hereditary trait, while others maintain that environment is the major factor. Inherited genes do play a role within the measures of any kinds of intelligence; but too often, in the case of creative intelligence, heredity seems to be more excuse than actual fact.

Physiological Barriers

5.1.3 Physiological Barriers

 Physiological barriers can exist through types of brain damage one might incur through disease, or accident. Or one might have a physical disability of some sort that prevents certain types of productivity. Yet, John Milton was blind and Beethoven was deaf...

Sociological Barriers

5.1.4 Sociological Barriers

 Most certainly our social environment affects our creative expression. A society is comprised of individuals organized in some manner for the protection and, supposedly, the advancement of its individual members. Problems arise when the organization takes on a life of its own and is responsible for dehumanizing its members, making them feel individually insignificant. A society shares a set of morals and traditions and is characterized by collective activities, interests, and behaviours. Often an individual member feels that it is immoral to deviate from the norm, to appear to differ with the written and unwritten laws of his or her particular group. Whether the society is a nation or a street gang, deviations of behaviour from the group's established patterns can evoke punishments or exclusion. Therefore, unique behaviour, suggested change, and the like, are considered subversive and threaten the stability and security that others derive from group affiliation.

History has demonstrated that when the individual loses a sense of power over his or her own life, a society is ripe for a leader with a dominant personality who advocates group norms and the need to protect those norms. Such appeals to "groupness" and the group's right to sustain itself have been obvious, for example, in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and several African nations.

 Also, within a particular sociological setting, whether it is a family, a school, a bridge club, a ball team, there are class systems, designed to keep people in their place, on such bases as age, sex, appearance, ability, background, seniority, right‑handedness, and so on.

 Social environment is a major factor in our ability to use our creative potential and to express our own uniqueness. Creative expression involves personal risk. Negative reactions to our expressions from our own group can cause us to experience even less self‑significance. Often an individual will retreat in order to feel accepted. The implications here are strong for those who attempt to evoke creative behaviour through teaching.

Psychological Barriers

A) self-Imposed Barriers

 b) Conformity or Giving The Answer Expected

c) Lack of effort In Challenging the Obvious

d) Evaluating Too Quickly

e) Fear of Looking Like a Fool

 5.1.5 Psychological Barriers

 Given the foregoing categories of barriers to creative productivity ‑ historical, biological, physiological, and sociological ‑ by far the most signifcant and prevalent barriers are psychological. Therefore, they are the ones that demand the most attention from teachers of creative behavior. If we define a barrier as a factor that impedes progress or restricts free movement and give that definition a psychological application, then we are talking about the heart of the teaching profession: What are those elements that impede growth and development and how can they be eliminated or, at least, reduced?

 The categories of barriers that have been discussed thus far are, by and large, external factors. They are imposed, for the most part, by forces outside us. Many of them serve well for those who would find reason for not being productive. Some people, in fact, convince themselves that external forces will never allow them to exercise creativity. This in itself is a psychological barrier. 

There are a number of psychological barriers which get in the way of the analytical and creative managers. The more important are:

Self‑imposed barriers;

Patterns, or one unique answer;

Conformity;

Not challenging the obvious;

Evaluating too quickly;

Fear of looking a fool.

These are discussed below.

A) Self-Imposed Barriers

The self‑imposed barrier is one of the more difficult barriers to recognise. We put it up ourselves, either consciously or unconsciously.

 B) Conformity or Giving the Answer Expected

The barrier of conformity follows the previous barrier in the sense that many managers feel they have to conform to the patterns established by their colleagues in the organisation in which they work.

 C) Lack of Effort in Challenging the Obvious

Another barrier is the lack of effort in challenging the obvious solution. This barrier is, in fact, two barriers rolled into one. When faced with problems, there is a tendency to go for the obvious answer, which is accepted without question. Maybe, we're just happy to have found an answer to the problem, at all Secondly, having an answer we avoid challenging it, even though there may be other and better answers. There is an old problem‑solving technique which suggests that whenever an answer to a problem has been found, the answer and the problem are put on one side for a day, or so. The answer is then challenged to test whether it is the right answer. More often than not, a period of conscious or unconscious thinking allows other answers to be found. These may be better, or at least may cast doubts on the original solution.

In general, managers tend to avoid following through ideas and suggestions which depart from the accepted state of affairs. The phrase, 'Why don't we ...?' is frequently answered in a negative way by working out the reasons why it cannot be done, or it would not work. For example, when we have to undertake a task which we do not very much like doing, we tend to 'put off the evil day', giving reasons why it would be better or more appropriate to tackle it at another time. If only we would buckle down and do it, the job would be completed in far less time than the time we spend finding excuses for not doing it!

An extreme statement of this barrier ‑ lack of effort in challenging the obvious ‑ is a response known as the automatic no'. Any new idea is automatically rejected, almost without consideration. The reason for the rejection may be that the new idea came from a junior, a peer or even someone outside the department or section. The rejecter has feelings of anger or jealousy at not thinking of the idea himself, and therefore rejects it out of hand.

D) Evaluating Too Quickly

This barrier ‑ evaluating too quickly ‑ is not an easy one to remove. Everybody has a well developed capability of evaluating ideas, and this is applied almost instinctively when ideas are put forward. As with the ‘automatic no' response, we tend to analyse and too often reject ideas which are slightly offbeat or new: 'that's silly', 'that won't work' or 'we tried it last year and it didn't work are common phrases. The idea is then buried and a chance has been lost to develop new approaches.

One way of understanding this barrier is to look at your hands. If the left hand represents idea production and the right hand represents idea evaluation, the two hands are not separate as in real life but are linked and linked very tightly indeed. So much so, that an idea produced is immediately evaluated and possibly killed, e.g. by the phrase, 'that won't work'.

Success in creative thinking demands that the two linked hands should be separated, and that the right hand (idea evaluation) should be put on one side, for the moment. All ideas are acceptable in a creative situation, regardless of their quality. They may be good, bad, useful, useless, and illegal ‑ it doesn't matter, for in a creative session all ideas are acceptable. Subsequently, the evaluation hand is brought back and at that stage a strange thing happens. Some of the ideas, which would have originally been dismissed out of hand, are looked at afresh, possibly with the comment: 'Wait a minute, there may be something in that idea after all'. The ideas are given a chance to develop and not rejected too quickly. While the original idea may be silly or useless, it may lead onto other ideas which are readily applicable. So evaluation has no part to play in a creative situation, and all ideas, however wild or silly are accepted. Later, at the end of the session one or two really wild ideas are examined afresh.

Linked to this barrier, is the phrase, 'suspend judgment'. In the creative situation no evaluation or judgement is allowed, either of other people's ideas or your own. Judgment is suspended until later and all ideas are accepted.

E) Fear of Looking Like a Fool

Fear of looking like a fool is the biggest barrier of all and the most difficult to remove. It is one of the oldest barriers in that it starts very early in life. The imagination and creativity injected into games played by very young children generate much laughter and enjoyment. Unfortunately, the laughter can be turned against an individual who then begins to say, 'they are laughing at me'. Nobody likes being laughed at and, as a consequence, as we grow up we tend to avoid putting forward the silly or wild ideas, in case we are laughed at, or thought foolish. Another phrase applicable in creative situation is 'laugh with, not at, the wild ideas'.

 This barrier is heightened when managers from different levels in the organisation are working together to solve problems. The most junior member of the team will not put forward wild ideas in case his seniors regard him as a fool. He does not want to destroy his promotion chances and therefore, sticks with well‑tried (i.e., analytical) routines. At the other end of the scale, the most senior manager seeks to protect the image he has built for himself. He says, 'I don't want to confirm junior in his opinion that I'm a silly old fool'. As a consequence, he does not propose any wild ideas either.

This barrier has another aspect. Managers do not like going against universally accepted views, particularly when these are stated by prominent or notable people. There is a risk of being wrong, particularly if the new idea is radically different from common practice. Examples of this aspect abound in history, and are still found today. This aspect is also particularly strong when technological advance is present, and new skills are required to replace existing. Examples of this aspect are:

• A cast-iron plough, invented in 1797, was rejected by New Jersey farmers who said that it would stimulate the weeds and poison the plants;

• The patent for a radio valve lapsed in 1907 as no one could find a use for it;

• In 1906, a scientist, Simon Newcomb, said that flying was quite impossible;

• President Truman was said to have been advised by Admiral Leahy that, 'Atomic bombs won't go off, and I speak as an explosives expert';

• The railway builders in the early nineteenth century were advised that speeds of 50 m.p.h. would cause nose bleeds, and that trains could not go through tunnels because people would be asphyxiated;

• Brunel, building the SS 'Great Britain', now restored in dry dock in Bristol, was advised that, 'iron ships won't float'. So unsure were the builders of the efficiency of boilers and propellers that they included sails as well;

• In 1933, Lord Rutherford said, 'The energy produced by breaking down the atom is a poor kind of a thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine';

• In 1957, the Astronomer Royal, Sir Harold Spencer Jones, commenting on the news of the first satellite, said that generations would pass before man landed on the moon, and that even if he did succeed, he would have precious little chance of getting back.

 Statements like these made by eminent people, who really ought to know better, discourage others from trying new and unusual ideas. Fortunately creative people are prepared to take risks ‑ it is they who lead the way into new technologies and procedures. They are not discouraged by criticism and, of course, are rightly acclaimed later when their ideas are found to be sound and workable.

Fear of looking foolish, or being proved wrong, is a powerful barrier for the analytical and creative manager. As has been suggested earlier, barriers have no place in a creative session and behavior, and should be left outside the room.

Creative Processes

5.3.1 Creative Processes

In general, psychologists have viewed creativity as a process existing in a single person at a particular point in time. Some other authors, however, present a new alternative to this view. Csikszentinilialyi, Gardner, Gruber and Davis, and Hennessey and Amabile represent the new view and discuss creativity as existing in the larger system of social networks, problem domains, and fields of enterprise, such that the individual who produces products that are judged to be creative is only one of many necessary parts. This systems view of creative processes does not preclude the individual view, however. Rather, it provides additional insights regarding creative persons and products and their function in society as a whole. Our initial focus, therefore, will be to outline some understandings of the process within the individual before going on to the systems approach.

By far the greatest amount of agreement is with the statement that creativity takes time. In fact, some authors believe that the very nature of creativity depends on the time constraints involved and the opportunity to revise, or nurture, the outcomes once produced. Although not all theorists emphasize time to the same extent, the creative process is not generally considered to be something that occurs in an instant with a single flash of insight, even though insights may occur.

Instead of focusing on instantaneous insights, then, Barron and Torrance compare the process of creativity to procreation and emphasize the long gestation period that is required after the initial conception of an idea. Another process to which creativity has been compared (which also emphasizes time) is the more general and even lengthier process of evolution, in which the surviving products are determined through natural selection from a multitude of random variations.

Barron, Csikszentiniilialyi, Gardner, Gruber and Davis, Perkins, Sternberg, and Walberg all suggest that creative processes involve an active search for gaps in existing knowledge, problem finding, or consciously attempting to break through the existing boundaries and limitations in one's field. On the other hand, Feldman, Johnson‑Laird, Langley and Jones, Simonton, and Taylor suggest that creative products are outcomes of random variations at either the generative or selection stage in creative processes. A further alternative, intermediate between chance‑dependent and completely intentional processes, is an approach that is also taken by several of the authors. Specifically, creative processes may be seen as initiating from a previous failure to find explanations for phenomena or to incorporate new ideas into existing knowledge, or form a general drive toward self‑organization through the reduction of chaos.

In addition to asking about origins, one might also ask about differences between the products of creative processes. Does the particular product or the domain in which creativity occurs affect the process itself, just as different children or different species may develop at different rates and perhaps go through unique series of stages? Although several authors claim that creativity is domain‑specific, there are some claims for universals in creativity, as there are for development and evolution. Thus, several general characteristics of creative thinking, regardless of domain, have been proposed.

For example, creative thought processes, regardless of the problem on which they are focused, are claimed to involve the following: transformations of the external world and internal representations by forming analogies and bridging conceptual gaps; constant redefinitions of problems; applying recurring themes and recognizing patterns and images of wide scope to make the new familiar and the old new and nonverbal modes of thinking.

In addition to time requirements, some element akin to insight, and the generality of processes across domains, a further issue on which several authors agree is that different levels of creative expression may occur. Although not all authors have addressed the levels issue explicitly, the general belief is that the processes responsible for varying levels of creativity may differ, if not in kind, at least in degree; see Feldman for a more detailed discussion. Thus, both within a domain and within the same individual at different points in time, there may be differences with respect to the amount of creative processing in which individuals engage. Einstein, in this view, may have attained a high level of creativity, or often have engaged creative thought processes, whereas a less influential scientist in his time may not have achieved such a high level, or simply did not apply creative processes to the same extent that Einstein did. Different levels of creativity may exist, therefore, in an analogous fashion to the idea that species differ in their complexity along the phylogenetic scale. However, this issue of levels brings up yet another area of controversy: the availability and accessibility of creative processes, both between and within individuals.

First, let us address the availability question, as it pertains to different individuals. Creativity, according to some authors, occurs only in special individuals (the Edisons, Einsteins, Freuds, Mozarts, and Picassos of the world) at rare moments in time. Other authors believe creativity to be a much more normative process, available to every thinking instrument ‑ adult expert, growing child, or programmed computer. Thus, creative processes can be trained and improved, as far as Langley and Jones, Schank, Taylor, and Torrance are concerned, because their concept of creativity is in line with this latter, “available‑to‑everyone” view. Training is not an easy matter, however, according to the theories of authors such as Barron, Csikszentmilialyi, Gruber and Davis, and Hennessey and Amabile, who maintain that creativity is achieved only when the “right” combination of particular problems, skills, individual, and social milieu comes together.

Finally, there is controversy over the accessibility of creative processes within individuals. Disagreement on the accessibility issue ensues when the role of the unconscious and semiconscious elements in creative processing are brought up. As with insight, the expression of the unconscious is sometimes conceived of as the key to creativity (Feldman; Torrance). Thus, creativity, according to these authors, is accessible only by bringing unconscious elements into conscious awareness. In other views, however, the role of the unconscious and the question of accessibility are ignored completely. Once again, the consensus lies in between, with unconscious elements existing and being important for creativity, but not the essence of creative thought processes. Langley and Jones, for instance, provide a particularly interesting discussion of the unconscious in the memory‑activation processes. In the Langley and Jones proposal, the memories relevant to a creative insight are not accessible until just the right cue activates them. Thus, they propose that such unconscious processes are involved in, but are not central or unique to, creativity.

The issues addressed when one considers creative processes, therefore, include the following: the time required for such processes; the role of insight and the sparks that set off creative thinking; how closely processes are tied to their products; general characteristics of creative thought across different domains; levels of creative processing; the need for the products of such processes to be unique in order for them to be labelled as creative; and how accessible and controllable the processes are in conscious awareness.

Creative Persons

5.3.2 Creative Persons

Descriptions of the creative person typically fall into three general categories: cognitive characteristics; personality and motivational qualities; special events or experiences during one's development. We shall discuss each category in turn.

It is generally acknowledged that people are creative within particular domains of endeavor, even though people who are creative in different domains may share common traits. Thus, one may be a creative biologist, but a very uncreative novelist, or vice versa. This is a curious statement, given that when the issue of domain specificity occurs in discussions of creative processes, much less agreement ensues. Nonetheless, domain specificity is a major consideration when describing creative persons, and it goes along with other characteristics such as using one's existing knowledge in the domain as a base to create new ideas, being alert to novelty, and finding gaps in domain knowledge. Although, it is generally agreed that creative individuals are creative within limited domains, various explanations have been offered for why individuals differ in their propensities toward and abilities in their domains of specialty. Csikszentinitialyi, Gardner, Perkins, and Walberg, for instance, attribute such specificities to inborn sensitivities to particular types of information or modes of operation. Gardner and Gruber and Davis, however, discuss unique combinations of intelligences, whereas Walberg emphasizes highly practiced skills as a factor.

A list of cognitive characteristics that are shared by creative people, regardless of domain, can be grouped into three sets: traits, abilities, and processing styles that creative individuals use and possess.

First, there are the four traits that are commonly said to be associated with creative individuals: relatively high intelligence, originality, articulateness and verbal fluency, and a good imagination. The next set of characteristics that have been used by creative persons includes the following cognitive abilities: the ability to think metaphorically, flexibility and skill in making decisions, independence of judgment, coping well with novelty, logical thinking skills, internal visualization, the ability to escape perceptual sets and entrenchment in particular ways of thinking, and finding order in chaos. Finally, creative people may also be characterized by the way in which they approach problems (i.e., style); some of the most commonly mentioned processing styles include using wide categories and images of wide scope, a preference for nonverbal communication, building new structures rather than using existing structures, questioning norms and assumptions in their domain (asking “Why?”), being alert to novelty and gaps in knowledge, and using their existing knowledge as a base for new ideas.

The one characteristic that seems to prevail among creative people, however, is what seems almost to be an aesthetic ability that allows such individuals to recognize “good” problems in their field and apply themselves to these problems while ignoring others (Perkins; Stemberg; Walberg). What accounts for this sense of aesthetic taste and judgment? Perhaps it is some combination of the foregoing characteristics, perhaps it is better explained by the personality or motivational characteristics to be presented next, or maybe it is a separate factor altogether. Whatever the particular explanation, this aesthetic sense is clearly a pervasive feature of creative persons and one that is worthy of greater study, not just in the arts, in which we think of aesthetics as being of primary importance, but in a variety of domains, including scientific areas, in which we do not usually think of aesthetics as playing an important role, at least when investigated superficially.

As with the cognitive characteristics, there is no one personality or motivational characteristic that is useful for attaching the label ‑creative‑ to a particular person. Rather, creative personalities are composed of a constellation of many characteristics, some of which may be present in one creative individual, but not in another, and thus mentioned by some authors, but not others. The most commonly mentioned characteristics include a willingness to confront hostility and take intellectual risks, perseverance, a proclivity to curiosity and inquisitiveness, being open to new experiences and growth, a driving absorption, discipline and commitment to one's work, high intrinsic motivation, being task‑focused, a certain freedom of spirit that rejects limits imposed by others, a high degree of self‑organization such that these individuals set their own rules rather than follow those set by others, and a need for competence in meeting optimal challenges; though often withdrawn, reflective, and internally preoccupied, creative individuals are also said to have impact on the people who surround them.

Additional characteristics that were mentioned less often yet are still considered to be important features of creative personalities, were tolerance for ambiguity, a broad range of interests, a tendency to play with ideas, valuing originality and creativity, unconventionality in behaviour, experiencing deep emotions, intuitiveness, seeking interesting situations, opportunism, and some degree of conflict between self‑criticism and self‑confidence.

In addition to the conflict between criticism and confidence, there appears to be a conflict or paradox between socially withdrawn and socially integrated tendencies; at least this appears to be the case when we consider the comments from those authors who discussed how creativity and creative individuals function in social environments. For instance, it was mentioned previously that creative people have impact on others in their immediate surroundings. However, Feldman and Gardner, both suggest that what distinguishes creative individuals is their lack of fit to their environment. Similarly, others have discussed creative people's need to maintain distance from their peers, an avoidance of interpersonal contact, and resistance to societal demands. Back on the other side, it has also been proposed that creative individuals have a drive for accomplishment and recognition, a need to form alliances, desire attention, praise, and support, are charismatic, display honesty and courageousness, are emotionally expressive, and are generally ethical, empathetic, and sensitive to the needs of others. The conflict between social isolation and integration, then, is yet another issue that would be brought into clearer focus if investigated directly.

The final light in which to consider creative individuals is with respect to their developmental histories. Such histories were primarily elucidated by Gruber and Davis, Simonton, and Weisberg, although some aspects of development were also discussed by Csikszentinitalyi, Gardner, Perkins, Sternberg, and Torrance.

Being a firstborn, having survived the loss of one or both parents early in life, experiencing unusual situations, being reared in a diversified, enriching, and stimulating home environment, and being exposed to a wide range of ideas are some of the early experiences and demographic characteristics that were mentioned by Simonton, Csikszentinitalyi, Weisberg, Walberg, and Gardner, respectively. Creative adults, while children, have also been cited as being happier with books than with people, liking school and doing well, developing and maintaining excellent work habits, learning outside of class for a large part of their ‘education’, having many hobbies, being omnivorous readers, and forming distinct and closely knit peer groups, yet perhaps also exhibiting marginality. Once again, the tension between social isolation and integration appears.

Having a future career image and definite role models, mentors, and paragons while in training are features put forth by Simonton, Torrance, Walberg, and Weisberg as important factors influencing the development of creators in many fields? Moreover, over the course of their careers, creative individuals exert sustained effort and hence enjoy enduring reputations, have contributions that demonstrate precocity and longevity publish early and get good jobs at the initial stages, and, overall, demonstrate voluminous productivity.

Studies of creative people, more than any other approaches to research in creativity, are in dire need of some good controls. Such control studies might, for instance, include experiments that examine people with differences in the relevant characteristics beforehand, not after their creativity has already been assessed.

Creative Products

5.3.3 Creative Products

Reflecting psychology's emphasis on laboratory studies, the most frequently discussed products of creative thought are solutions to problems, responses on creativity tests, and explanations for phenomena. Close behind come technological inventions and artefacts, novel ideas, and new styles, designs, or paradigms. Although of more interest to the layperson when thinking about creativity, the fine arts (painting, sculpture, and music) received only half as much attention from the authors as scientific and laboratory problem solving. There are the expressions of emotions and abstract ideas, the performing arts of dance and drama, occupations such as advertising and marketing, and other media such as photography and film.

An important question concerning products, as it is for processes, is whether or not any generalizations can be made about products that are judged to be creative across different domains. The most obvious statement is that creative products are novel ‑ they are not imitations, nor are they mass‑produced. Other requirements of such products are that they are powerful and generalizable, exhibit parsimony, cause irreversible changes in the human environment, may involve unusual sensory images or transformations, and are valuable or useful to the society, or at least the restricted domain, in which they were formed.

Some features that may be more relevant to scientific creativity and creative problem solving are that the products should show sensitivity to gaps in existing knowledge, cross disciplinary and within‑discipline boundaries so that they are difficult to categorize, be surprising, and be correct, in that experts agree on the produced solution. In addition, they may be difficult, initially vague, or ill‑defined and involve coherent syntheses of broad areas. Torrance's criteria, which include showing humour, fantasy, colour, and movement, in both literal and metaphoric senses, probably are more relevant to the arts and specific tests of creativity than they are to science.

Creative Places (Domains, Fields and Contexts) 

5.3.4 Creative Places (Domains, Fields, and Contexts)

Three ways that a field can be thought of as affecting creativity are via the general contributions and resources available to individuals within the field, through the special effects a particular field may have on its domain and the nature of the creative expressions that result, and by containing specific characteristics that either promote or inhibit creativity.

Wealth an audience's attention, educational and employment opportunities, background knowledge, styles and paradigms, cues for insights, roles, norms, and precedents, and good teachers have all been cited as contributions relevant to the creativity expressed in particular domains, individuals, and processes. Further, fields provide peers to evaluate and confirm creativity in their domains while also protecting and freeing the development of creative products and individuals from the less congenial evaluations that may come from members of the general public. Stimulation and sustenance of creative processes, as well as preservation and selection of ideas have also been proposed as necessary components of any field in which creative endeavour occurs. According to Hennessey and Amabile, fields also affect the motivation of individuals working within them.

Csikszentinitalyi makes two claims that address a small part of the question regarding features of creativity‑inducing fields, provided that evaluation of products is seen as important in creative expression. First, he suggests that a field's internal organization is one factor that attracts interested neophytes to a particular field rather than others. Second, he claims that the ease of evaluation in various domains, and hence agreement among experts as to who and what are going to be defined as creative, is determined by the precision of notational systems within the domains. Other ways that a field can improve its likelihood of creativity, as suggested by Torrance, are by using sound effects to stimulate creative images and by providing warm‑up exercises that are designed to free the imagination, although these techniques probably are more relevant to some types of creativity than to others.

Now look at the differences between the creative individual and creative organizations, see Table 5.1.

STIMULANTS TO CREATIVITY

Coworkers

Teamwork, willingness to help each other, commitment to the work, and trust with fellow workers.

In my work group, people are willing to help each other.

The people in my work group are committed to our work.

Resources

Access to appropriate resources, including facilities, equipment, information, funds, and people.

The facilities I need for my work are readily available to me.

Generally I can get the resources I need for my work.

Challenge

Challenge due to the importance of the work and the intriguing nature of the task.

I feel that I am working on important projects.

The tasks in my work call out the best in me.

Freedom

Freedom in deciding how to accomplish the task. A sense of control over one's work and ideas.

I have the freedom to decide how I am going to carry out my projects.

In my daily work environment I feel a sense of control over my own work and my own ideas.

Supervisor

A manager who gives support to subordinates, communicates effectively, and sets clear goals.

My supervisor clearly sets overall goals for me.

My supervisor values individual contributions to project(s).

Creativity supports

Encouragement and support for creativity from top management; mechanisms for developing creative ideas in the organization.

In this organization top management expects that people will do creative work.

People are encouraged to take risks in this organization.

Recognition

The existence of rewards and recognition for creativity in the organization.

People are recognized for creative work in this organization.

People are rewarded for creative work in this organization.

Unity and cooperation

A shared vision within the organization and a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere.

There is a generally cooperative and collaborative atmosphere in this organization.

OBSTACLES TO CREATIVITY

Insufficient time

The lack of time in which to consider alternative ways of doing the work.

I have too much work to do in too little time.

We do not have sufficient personnel for the project(s) I am currently doing.

Status quo

The reluctance of managers or co-workers to change their way of doing things, a generally traditional approach.

There is much emphasis in this organization on doing things the way we have always done them.

Management avoids controversial ideas in this organization.

Political problems

Lack of cooperation between areas of the organization, and battles over turf issues.

People in this organization are very concerned about protecting their territory.

There are many political problems in this organization.

Evaluation pressure

Perceived inappropriate evaluation or feedback systems or environment focused on criticism and external evaluation.

People are quite concerned about negative criticism of their work in this organization,

People in this organization feel pressure to produce anything acceptable, even if quality is lacking.

CRITERION SCALE (OVERALL RATING BY EMPLOYEES)

Creativity

How creative the organization is overall.

Overall my current work environment is conducive to my own creativity.

My area of this organization is creative.

Productivity

How productive the organization is overall.

My area of this organization is effective.