10 Myths About Creativity that obstruct Innovation

Adapted excerpt from Entrepreneur blog post by By Martin Zwilling | October 25, 2013

Many people think creativity is divinely-inspired, unpredictable and bestowed on only a lucky few. There are a lot of popular myths about business creativity, yet none of them have much scientific evidence. A new study based on the latest research-- "The Myths of Creativity," by David Burkus -- helps demystify what's behind the forces and processes that drive innovation.

 Burkus' research suggests that with the proper training, anyone with a common-sense mindset grounded in reality can deliver creative and innovative new ideas, projects, processes, and programs.

The first step is to not limit your thinking. That means not following these ten long-standing myths about creative thinking:

1. Eureka myth. New ideas sometimes seem to appear as a flash of insight. But research shows that such insights are actually the culminating result of prior hard work on a problem. This thinking is then given time to incubate in the subconscious mind as we connect threads before the ideas pop out as new eureka-like innovations.

2. Breed myth. Many people believe creative ability is a trait inherent in one’s heritage or genes. In fact, the evidence supports just the opposite. There is no such thing as a creative breed. People who have confidence in themselves and work the hardest on a problem are the ones most likely to come up with a creative solution.

3. Originality myth. There's a long-standing myth about intellectual property -- the idea that a creative idea is proprietary to the person who thought of it. But history and empirical research show more evidence that new ideas are actually combinations of older ideas and that sharing those helps generate more innovation.

4. Expert myth. Many companies rely on a technical expert or team of experts to generate a stream of creative ideas. Harder problems call for even more knowledgeable experts. Instead, research suggests that particularly tough problems often require the perspective of an outsider or someone not limited by the knowledge of why something can’t be done.

5. Incentive myth. The expert myth often leads to another myth, which argues that bigger incentives, monetary or otherwise, will increase motivation and hence increase innovation productivity. Incentives can help, but often they do more harm than good, as people learn to game the system.

6. Lone Creator myth. This reflects our tendency to rewrite history to attribute breakthrough inventions and striking creative works to a sole person, ignoring supportive work and collaborative preliminary efforts. Creativity is often a team effort, and recent research into creative teams can help leaders build the perfect creative troupe.

7. Brainstorming myth. Many consultants today preach the concept of brainstorming, or spontaneous group discussions to explore every possible approach, no matter how far-out, to yield creative breakthroughs. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that just "throwing ideas around" consistently produces innovative breakthroughs.

8. Cohesive myth. Believers in this myth want everyone to get along and work happily together to foster innovations. That's why we see so many "zany" companies where employees play foosball and enjoy free lunches together. In fact, many of the most creative companies have found ways to structure dissent and conflict into their process to better push their employees' creative limits.

9. Constraints myth. Another popular notion is that constraints hinder our creativity and the most innovative results come from people who have "unlimited" resources. Research shows, however, that creativity loves constraints. Perhaps companies should do just the opposite -- intentionally apply limits to leverage the creative potential of their people.

10. Mousetrap myth. Others falsely believe that once we have a new idea, the work is done. But the world won’t beat a path to our door or even find the door to an idea for a better mousetrap, unless we communicate it, market it and find the right customers. We all know of at least one "better mousetrap" that is still hidden.

If these are indeed the myths of business creativity, what then are the true components? According to Teresa Amabile, director of research at Harvard, creativity is really driven by four separate components: domain expertise, a defined creativity methodology, people willing to engage and company acceptance of new ideas. Where these components overlap is where real creativity happens.

If you believe your startup's success depends on your company being more creative and innovative then avoid thinking along the lines of these 10 myths and instead spend the time needed to understand and nurture the components of creativity in your environment.

Creativity or Innovation? The case of Apple.

Excerpt from a Havard Business Review blog by Alan Iny and Luc de Brabandere | 8:00 AM September 10, 2013

Every idea, no matter how ingenious or successful, will eventually need to be replaced with a new one. But business leaders, as human beings above all, tend to cling to their existing ideas, beliefs, and other mental models — or what we call boxes — longer than they should.

When Apple first created its highly disruptive, history-making iPhone, the company unleashed years of innovation not just in its phone offerings, but in a seemingly infinite stream of related accessories and applications. The release this week of Apple's long-awaited iPhone 5C and 5S should offer business leaders everywhere a vivid reminder of the distinction between paradigm-shifting "creativity" and the "innovation" that often follows. Creativity and innovation are two separate processes — both important, but not identical.

Creativity can be defined as people's ability to change their perception of reality; by doing so, they can then create new ideas, hypotheses, approaches, and other "boxes." Apple couldn't come up with the original iPod, for example, until its leaders changed their mental boxes regarding what a portable music player was — from the Sony Walkman to one associated with a broader ecosystem. The iPhone was not the first mobile phone, but it fundamentally changed the box of what a mobile phone could be (as Apple also did with the iPad and mouse).

Innovation can be defined as a change in reality. In other words, innovation means taking an existing idea or box, such as the idea for a new product, service, or business model, and turning it into reality (for example, by manufacturing the product or implementing the business model). Once the first iPhone was developed, Apple was free to create all sorts of new features for and iterations of the iPhone and iPad — encouraging customers to change their own understanding of the products' possibilities.

Incremental innovations — think of BIC introducing double-bladed or triple-bladed razors once they were already in the razor business — do not require the creation of a new box. But transformational innovations — such as when BIC transformed itself from a pen manufacturer to a company that makes all sorts of disposable plastic objects, including pens, razors, lighters, calling cards — do require a new box.

The development of the earliest lanterns and light bulbs was based on the assumption that "light is created by burning something." Once this box was established, engineers innovated by trying different materials, such as various wicks or oils, to improve the quality and duration of the light. Only when Thomas Edison shifted his, and the world's, perception to embrace a new box — that light is created by preventing something (the filament) from burning — could he then create the first incandescent light bulb.

In creating the new iPhone 5C and 5S, did leaders at Apple have to change some of their most fundamental perceptions of the company and the products and services it provides? Put differently, did Apple create a whole new box or did it use its legendary R&D skills to innovate further?

One thing is clear: no matter how robust and dominant this technology is today, eventually the iPhone and its ecosystem, and the ideas and assumptions underlying them, will need to be reexamined and replaced.