Kaplan Business School Page 1

Page 1 Kaplan Business School As

Identify a work-related problem you are currently experiencing at work or choose one provided (e.g., speeding up marking for MBA, encouraging recycling in the office, reducing waiting time in a café, improving a washing machine, or arranging prams during busy zoo showtimes). Develop new solutions using techniques, concepts, and theories discussed during lectures. Research tools suitable for the problem, such as Fishbone diagrams or levels of abstraction. Use limited resources (papers, coloured pens, a coat hanger, paper clips). Throughout Weeks 1–4, create and add to your “creativity pool” using brainstorming, mind mapping, storyboarding, or visualization, and apply creative thinking tools like Six Thinking Hats or Checklists. Reflect on your creative process by writing an individual report that integrates relevant theories, concepts, tools, and your creative journey based on your in-class participation, including at least six academic references.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of creative processes within organizational change and innovation requires a thorough understanding of both theoretical frameworks and practical tools. This report elucidates my personal creative journey undertaken to address a selected work-related problem—specifically, finding ways to encourage recycling in my office environment. This problem was chosen due to its societal relevance and the challenge it poses within organizational behavior contexts, making it an ideal candidate for applying creativity techniques rooted in theoretical underpinnings discussed during the course.

Introduction

The purpose of this project is to explore how creative thinking can be harnessed to generate innovative solutions for organizational issues. The problem identified—enhancing recycling participation—serves as a case to demonstrate the application of creativity tools and theories. This reflective essay discusses my process, including the selection and application of methodologies such as brainstorming, mind mapping, and critical analysis of potential solutions, underpinned by relevant academic literature. I aim to illustrate how these frameworks support fostering creativity within organizational confines, aligning with theories of innovation and change management.

Theoretical Frameworks and Concepts

Central to the creative process are concepts such as divergence and convergence (Osborn, 1953), which facilitate idea generation and refinement. The Fishbone diagram, a cause-and-effect tool (Ishikawa, 1982), was employed to analyze barriers to recycling, such as lack of awareness, inconvenience, or absence of motivation. Additionally, levels of abstraction (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) helped me move from concrete ideas to broader systemic solutions, fostering innovative thinking. The Six Thinking Hats technique (De Bono, 1985) was used to evaluate ideas from multiple perspectives—logical, emotional, creative—enhancing the depth of evaluation.

Application of Creative Tools

In initial weeks, I engaged in brainstorming sessions with colleagues, encouraging free idea expression without judgment to maximize divergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). I compiled ideas visually via mind maps (Buzan, 1993), noting connections and patterns. A challenge was the limited resources—primarily paper clips, various paper sizes, and coloured pens—which required inventive utilization. I employed the Levels of Abstraction technique by categorizing ideas from specific actions like “place recycling bins in visible locations” to broader strategies such as “create a recycling-conscious organizational culture.”

The Fishbone diagram facilitated identifying root causes of low recycling rates, leading to innovative solutions such as modular recycling stations assembled from paper clips and paper, or visual cues created with coloured pens on existing surfaces to raise awareness. Furthermore, I used the Six Thinking Hats to critically evaluate these options, considering improvements and potential barriers. Each tool fostered different aspects of creativity—divergent thinking, systematic analysis, multi-perspective evaluation—integrating to develop robust solutions.

Development and Reflection

Throughout Weeks 1–4, I continuously added to my “creativity pool” by documenting ideas and reflections in my journal. This iterative process allowed me to refine solutions, emphasizing the importance of persistence and openness to experimentation. Despite resource constraints, I explored how simple materials could be repurposed—e.g., using paper clips to assemble mini recycling bins or to attach visual cues—promoting resourcefulness and innovation. This aligns with the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), emphasizing the strategic importance of resource constraints in fostering creativity.

My fears during this process included the possibility that resource limitations might hinder effective implementation. However, applying creative problem-solving theories and tools helped me see constraints as catalysts for innovation (Cameron & Green, 2012). I also learned to value divergent ideas and not prematurely dismiss unconventional solutions, in line with Osborn’s (1953) emphasis on brainstorming as a critical step in creative thinking.

Integration of Theory and Practice

The integration of theories such as the Osborn’s (1953) creative problem-solving framework, De Bono’s (1985) Six Thinking Hats, and Mumford and Gustafson’s (1988) levels of abstraction provided a comprehensive approach to the problem. The literature supports that such tools enhance cognitive flexibility and creative confidence (Runco, 2007), vital for organizational change and innovation efforts. My reflective process reveals how these theories function synergistically—diverging (generating ideas), converging (evaluating and selecting), and abstracting (seeing the bigger picture).

This journey underscores that creativity is not solely an innate trait but a skill that can be nurtured through deliberate application of tools and reflective practice. As Mumford et al. (2002) suggest, fostering an environment conducive to experimentation, resourcefulness, and critical evaluation enhances innovative outcomes even under resource constraints.

Conclusion

This reflective analysis demonstrates that resource limitations, rather than hindering creativity, can stimulate inventive approaches through systematic application of established tools and theories. The experiential process affirmed that integrating diverse perspectives, structured frameworks, and iterative reflection contributes significantly to organizational problem-solving. As organizations seek sustainable solutions, fostering creativity via such frameworks is essential. The insights gained highlight the importance of intentional practice and theoretical grounding in developing innovative capacities within organizational contexts.

References

• Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
• Buzan, T. (1993). The Mind Map Book. BBC Books.
• Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2012). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. Kogan Page.
• De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Little, Brown, and Company.
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
• Ishikawa, K. (1982). Guide to Quality Control. Asian Productivity Organization.
• Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity in Organizations: A Case for a Systems Approach. In M. A. West (Ed.), Circularity of Creativity and Innovation (pp. 65–79). Routledge.
• Mumford, M. D., et al. (2002). Ability, Creativity, and the Development of Innovative Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 330–337.
• Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination. Scribner.
• Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Elsevier Academic Press.