Creative Problem Solving
I just finished a lecture series entitled, 'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit.' I almost never started it because I was expecting content and tone that seem common place when discussing creativity. By that I mean, creativity is often presented as something that you're born with. It is often thought of as being short or tall. You either possess one of these attributes or you do not. When it comes to creativity, I often hear terms in my field that sound something like, 'oh yes, he/she is very talented.' By implication, I hear, 'the gods have come down and bestowed the characteristic of creativity upon these people.' And of course, when I've heard similar compliments directed towards me, I know the truth. Creativity is not magic. It is not something humans conjure up from the spiritual world and channel into the physical. From my experience, and similarly to the content of the lecture series I'm about to discuss, creativity comes from a process, from many attempts, from hard work, and applied effort. No–Santa Claus did not come down and gift Picaso the amazing ability to paint a new world one day. As the lecturer pointed out, Pablo Picaso painted over 20,000 works during his career. Here is the math on that: if Pablo painted one piece of work every day, that means he would have painted a piece of art every day for approximately 55 years.
'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit' is a lecture series presented by professor Gerard Puccio. He's studied the field of creativity for over 30 years, and he delivers the content in a very accessible and scientific manner. The latter was what fascinated me the most about the content. Interestingly, I do not remember a professor ever discussing creative problem solving as something that could be accessed by a consistent process. The content always came off as almost mystical. There were some classes where instructors would require us to use some of the tools Puccio discusses, i.e. models, analogy, etc. However, it was never explicitly stated that we were using specific processes to generate ideas. In contrast, Puccio's professional mission has been to 'democratize creativity' (sourced from bio). I love that idea. This sentiment runs counter to much of my career, and certainly education. And I get it to some extent, as one who has aspired to be in the creative world, believing that creativity is a gift endorses feelings of esteem and high self-worth. Ultimately, there's no reason why everyone can't feel good about solving creative problems. We'll all have to deal with them at some point in our lives, so we might as well be skilled at solving them.
Puccio applies clear definitions and language to the steps involved in the creative process as well as highlights when creative problem solving is needed and when it is not. I cannot speak for everyone, but when I typically think of an image of a creative person or field, the typical stereotypes come to mind: painters in a studio, musicians on a stage, dreamers dreaming. When we analyze creative problem solving applications, we see that it is actually any time someone cannot research and find a specific answer to a problem at hand. This definition is much more broad than I have ever considered. It lends creative problem solving to a wide range of behavior, from engaging with your children on what to do over the weekend to creating a product that has never been made before. I love this idea. I've never really thought about the fact that deciding on fun and inventive things to do over the weekend with my son actually originates from a creative process. Simply applying the term 'creative' to the approach makes it much more appealing than it would be otherwise.
The lecture series goes through four primary phases in the creative problem solving process and breaks down each phase into various approaches and systems to tackle each one. The four phases are: clarify, ideate, narrow, and implement. Puccio also points out two critical tactics that should occur with each phase–divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Without rewriting the whole lecture series, I encourage anyone reading this to listen to the series or look up those terms. Most people will have a natural inclination to enjoy or prefer one or two of the phases listed. By examining all the necessary phases that occur through the creative problem solving process (whether you are aware of them or not), you can more effectively identify your own weak areas in actually solving creative problems. For instance maybe you're heavy in the clarifying phase, which is essentially identifying the problem. I personally think this is critical, but a common tendency is for people who gravitate towards this area to become stuck in analysis paralysis and never actually move on to the other necessary phases to actually solve the problem. If this is you and you don't know it, wouldn't it be great to recognize that so you can be more effective at producing the results you're after? Perhaps this means setting time limits for this phase or limiting data points to a specific number?
I just touched on two terms: divergent and convergent thinking. You most likely apply these two types of thinking every day, but you may not be using them in the best way. At least that was my case until listening to this series. Divergent thinking can be thought of as coming up with as many ideas or concepts as you can for a particular challenge. Convergent thinking can be thought of as the narrowing of this process, essentially that's when the editor comes into the room and points out the difficulties or hurdles that each solution may need to address. The common occurrence when people go through this process is applying convergent judgment too early in the process. An example might be, you're at the office and your team has huddled around a conference room to come up with a way to work through problem X. Some courageous person throws out an idea, and then the idea is met with, 'that won't work because Y and Z.' This immediate idea-judgment process results in very low problem solving. Most people would be very unlikely to continue to put forth ideas after being shut down. I bet this same pattern happens to most of you, whether it's work related or simply trying to decide what to do on a Friday evening. Deferring judgment until after all ideas are presented results in a better flow of ideas without the slowdown of applied judgment too early in the process.
Quantity. That was a key term that I definitely heard. Like most people, I can be guilty of believing that the best idea might be the first, or at least within the first five ideas. Puccio points out that initial ideas often come from familiar neural pathways. So if novel is what you're after, it's most likely not going to be within the first attempts. More attempts forces the brain to make different associations that can often result in novel ideas that wouldn't have presented themselves otherwise. Also, I believe the common perception of brilliant ideas is that the best one comes down to the author in a flash of light. It is as if Paul McCartney was walking along and the entire White Album came to his mind in its fully formed version. We want to ignore the tremendous hours spent by the band practicing, playing, writing together, working and reworking songs until they were right. Why do we that? I believe it’s because we want magic to be real. There is some part of us that really wants to believe that superheros are among us. Perhaps they are, but it's not because of innate abilities. It's arguably because they applied a rigorous amount of effort to a personally effective process at something they felt extremely passionate about.
I encourage anyone reading this to listen to 'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit' on audible. It will provide you with the language and clear processes to reference for a huge range of challenges that you may be facing in your own life. I see myself referencing this material for many years to come, and I've already identified about a dozen areas that could use some deeper analysis using the tools Puccio outlines. And if you're someone who believes the phrase you've told yourself, or perhaps you've been told, 'I am just not creative,' please ignore that and dig deeper into your own imagination. Ignore the haters and create, dream, work to solve what's in front of you.