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

simultaneously de-emphasizes the value of
the early preparation, incubation and provocative
thinking stages on which creative outcomes
are based. Consequently, in corporate
environments, which tend to be outcomesbased
by default, it would be easy unwittingly
to downplay or overlook the degree to which
the creative thinking process contributes in its
own right to ongoing corporate growth and
learning – whether or not specifically identifiable
outcomes result.
One may argue that this caution places
too much weight on a simple vocabulary preference,
yet the tendency to emphasize outcomes
at the expense of process can clearly
be observed in studies where ‘innovation’ is
deliberately defined as referring only to the
practical implementation – ‘the successful
exploitation’ (Tidd et al., 1997: 25) – of
creative ideas, as opposed to either the
method of producing the ideas or even the
ideas themselves (Isaksen, 1987; Lampikoski
and Emden, 1996).
A primary challenge, for communication
managers then, would be to find a method of
naming or labelling the notion of creative
thinking in a way that that is both unambiguous
and free of negative connotations in the
corporate environment. In addition, caution
would be necessary when interpreting and
attempting to apply the results of studies and
reports on organizational innovation, since it
would first be important to take into account
the sense – inclusive or exclusive – in which
the term is being used.
A second communication challenge is that
of legitimizing and incorporating into corporate
discourse the types of verbal interaction
that support and encourage creative thinking
processes. For example, corporate discourse
tends to place considerable value on vocabulary
reflecting deductive and inductive logic,
and emphasizing what is rational, practical,
valid, possible and likely. By way of contrast,
the distinguishing purpose of creative thinking
is to escape the confines of conventionally
accepted logical and rational trains of thought.
This requires openness to ideas that are seemingly
irrational, illogical, impractical, invalid,
impossible and unlikely – even bizarre – in
order to explore their potential and exploit
their generative power. Practically speaking,
this means that language and vocabulary
choices that reflect and promote suspension of
evaluative logic, resistance to closure and
openness to generative exploration have to
become part of what is accepted and valued as
‘normal’ in everyday verbal exchanges. Initial
evidence of where this has begun to occur can
be found in expressions such as ‘blue sky’,
‘black hat’ and even ‘brainstorm’, which have
already become part of organizational linguistic
repertoires.
Of course, the value of traditional forms
of logic and critical reasoning to corporate
decision making, planning and management
is not under dispute. Nevertheless, in any
organization wishing to learn from and coordinate
both creative as well as logical/
evaluative thinking styles and systems, it
remains important to recognize how easily
seemingly sensible comments such as ‘That’s
not practical’ and ‘Let’s be reasonable’ will
(often unintentionally) shut down creative
thinking opportunities.
Organizational culture and
creative thinking
In order to survive, organizations must strike a
balance between order and change. On the
one hand they can only function effectively if
members perform their roles consistently,
carry out routine tasks and maintain ordered
systems. On the other hand, they need to
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors