Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

The relationship between
communication and corporate
creativity
While definitions of creativity vary, underpinning
both past and current research is the
recognition that communication is central to
it. In fact, in his seminal paper categorizing
types of creativity in 1961, Mel Rhodes goes
as far as to define the term as ‘the phenomenon
in which a person communicates a new
concept’ (p. 216; my italics). Implicitly and
explicitly, communication is consistently identified
as both a creativity-relevant process,
and a domain-relevant skill (Amabile, 1983),
since it is essential as a means not only of
creating, facilitating and managing creative
environments, processes and outcomes, but
also of acquiring the knowledge on which
corporate creativity and innovation need
to be based (Collins and Amabile, 1999;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hallman, 1963;
Locke and Kirkpatrick, 1995).
It is therefore not surprising that studies of
business creativity invariably also provide
unique insights into principles of organizational
communication – for example, those
underlying employee motivation, evaluation
and feedback; collaboration and networking;
communication of corporate vision, values
and climate, as well as problem solving,
change management, negotiation and persuasion
(see for example Collins and Amabile,
1999; Gryskiewicz, 2000; Kanter, 1988;
Sternberg and Lubart 1999; Treffinger, 1987).
This chapter will show that recognizing,
examining and mapping out these areas of
influence will allow organizations more effectively
to harness and manage creative opportunities,
as well as integrate creative thinking
processes into existing corporate systems and
structures. The term ‘creative thinking’ will be
used in this chapter to encompass both the
successful production of ‘new and relevant’
(Amabile, 1983; MacKinnon, 1978; Stein,
1984) ideas and products, as well as the
mental processes that underpin and contribute
towards that production.
Corporate language choices and
creative thinking
At its most simple level, effective incorporation
and management of creative thinking in
organizations is fundamentally influenced
by the language used to identify it. Even the
most commonly used terms ‘creativity’ and
‘innovation’ both carry connotations that
can either inhibit or enhance what people
perceive as the kind of activities and thinking
they would embrace, and this in turn affects
how valuable they seem to corporate goals.
For example, the term ‘creativity’ is preferred
by psychological theorists who have in the
past dominated the field of creativity research
(Lehrdahl, 2001). However, the term is also
often perceived as carrying with it broader
suggestions of liberal arts, design, subjectivity,
eccentricity and even dishonesty, which may
influence and limit its perceived acceptability
in many corporate environments.
By way of contrast, business discourse tends
to prefer the more outcome-oriented term
‘innovation’, which, even when it is used
interchangeably with the term ‘creativity’
(Amabile, 1983; Andriopolos and Lowe,
2000; De Bono, 1989; Peters, 1991), implies
practicality, strategy and a shift in focus to
successful outcomes such as ‘new products,
new services, and new businesses’ (Jonash
and Somerlatte, 1999: 6; Wehner et al.,
1991). However, the problem arises that,
while avoiding the possibly vague and unbusinesslike
connotations of the term ‘creativity’,
a discourse emphasizing innovation
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors