Thinkers should aim for practical creativity, not ideas that are simply bizarre or different

You fit the last piece into a jigsaw puzzle. You know it is right because:

1. The piece fits.
2. The picture makes sense.
3. There are no other pieces.
You work out a mathematical problem. You know you are right because you have proceeded step by step with accuracy at each step. The answer also seems right in general terms.

You cook some soup. You taste it. You add some more basil. Finally you judge it to be 'right'...
The artist mixes up some colour and puts it on the canvas. The artist feels it to be right because what she sees matches what she has in mind...
A musician tries out some notes and likes what he hears...
A scientist creates a hypothesis and feels that it is right...
A politician finds a suitable phrase that will catch on with the public and feels that it is right...
An advertising copywriter condenses a complex message into a single line and feels that it is right...
A newspaper editor changes a headline and feels that the new headline is just right...

RIGHTNESS
The spectrum ranges from 'rightness' that can be objectively verified to a 'feeling' of rightness. What does a creative thinker do? When does the outcome of creative thinking seem to be right? When is the point of satisfaction? When does the thinker stop instead of trying to go even further forward?

When there is a finite problem to be solved then the thinker is happy when the new idea seems to solve the problem. But with creative thinking there are additional dimensions:

Is the idea new?
Is the idea different?
Is the idea unusual?
Is the idea much more effective?
Is the idea simpler?

Just as a mathematician is attracted by a new and simpler approach to a theorem, so, too, is a creative thinker attracted to a new and simpler idea. Just as a scientist seeks for a simpler underlying explanation, so a creative person seeks for a simpler idea. There can be three stages of satisfaction.

STAGE 1
In this first stage an idea has 'appeal'. There is something about the idea that makes it attractive to a creative person. At this point there is a real danger. Sometimes an idea has appeal to a creative person simply because it is unusual, bizarre and very different. While this may indeed satisfy the 'creative' sensibility of the creative person, it may not be a very practical idea.

At this point we come back to something I have so often mentioned both in Thinking Managers and also in my books: the creativity dilemma. If a creative person comes up with a very logical idea which could be used immediately, then that idea is said 'not to be very creative' (even though no one else has thought of that logical idea). Creative people are expected to come up with bizarre and unusual ideas which are then said 'to be creative but impractical'. So the difficulty that a creative person has is to come up with practical and usable ideas which still have about them some 'aura' of creativity.

This is so when other people are involved, but it also happens when a creative person internalises this need to be visibly creative. I regard this as a serious impediment to effective creativity: the need to be seen to be 'creative'. Creativity should only have one goal. That goal is effectiveness. What I call the 'crazytivity' aspect of creativity does creativity a lot of harm in the long run.

I would like to see creative people regarded as super-logical rather than illogical. They reach answers that, once reached, are highly logical. But traditional logic is unable to get there (for all the reasons mentioned so often in my books). So the appeal of this 'first stage' idea may be that it is simple, that it is effective or that it is different (creative).

With the caution given above, this appeal is important. It is the same as the appeal of a simple hypothesis to a scientist. The creative thinker says: 'I like this idea: it has possibilities'. The frame of 'liking' can vary from one person to another.

STAGE 2
Here the creative thinker runs the idea forward in his or her mind. What would happen? Would the idea really work? Could it be abused? What might the dangers be? What difficulties could arise? The idea would be modified or improved to take into account the difficulties.

Suppose that one of the purposes of parking meters was to allow many people to use the same parking space during the day - as distinct from one person leaving a car there for many hours. We could have parking meters with very short time spans and also a high charge.

We could use the provocation: 'Po cars limit their own parking'. From this comes the idea that you could park in any designated area provided that you left your headlights on. You would park for as short a time as possible because you would not want to run down your batteries. There would be no need to set up meters, no need to have coins, etc.

This idea has the appeal of simplicity. Then the difficulties arise. What about those people who forget about their car and do run their batteries down? They would block a space for a very long time. There would be protests about the useless use of energy. Some smart people would carry spare batteries in the trunk of the car and park for a long time without running down the main battery. Such considerations would be addressed or dismissed as unimportant.

In the end, the idea might be narrowed down to a simple option. If you parked in a meter bay, you would not have to pay provided you left your headlights on. This would be for very short stays. The benefit would be an increased turnover in the use of limited parking space.

Sometimes an objection may be so strong that it kills the idea. A creative thinker should have enough sense to realise this. There is no point in hanging on to an idea just because it is 'creative' when it is not going to work.

STAGE 3
There may not be a Stage 3. If the idea successfully survives Stage 2, that may be all that is needed. The idea has appeal and the practical use of the idea seems to be possible. From that point on there is development, implementation, testing, feedback and review.

Stage 3 comes about when the original idea has to be so modified that suddenly there is a jump to a totally different concept. So Stage 3 often happens in the course of Stage 2. In seeking to overcome the problems that have arisen in Stage 2, a new concept develops.

So instead of leaving your headlights on, there is a special, low wattage, green light showing through the windscreen. This is a sealed unit which you pay to get charged up. As the light shines the unit discharges. It may even be that you buy magnetic charged-up cards (like phone cards) to insert on your own on-board unit. This is now the equivalent of an on-board parking meter.

The advantage over displayed times is that revenue is involved: and also displayed times can be altered and so must be noted - which is a chore. At this point the whole concept of on-board meters opens up. Clearly this new concept overcomes most of the objections listed under Stage 2. The concept can be developed in its own right in many different directions.

AESTHETIC SENSE
Artists have aesthetic sense. Indeed it could be argued that a considerable part of the talent of an artist is not so much in generating material, but in being sensitive (aesthetic sense) to what is beautiful and what will communicate. In 'found art' the artist produces nothing, but uses this sense to find value in found objects.

A scientist also has an aesthetic sense which may be called intuition. A scientist senses whether an explanation fits his general 'world picture'. This sense can be wrong. The great Einstein found it very difficult to accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The French scientist, Pasteur, had an excellent sense of the possible. This allowed him to enter many diverse fields and to make important contributions in each (silk, wine, cholera, rabies, etc.).

This aesthetic sense both propels the thinker forward - through dissatisfaction with current thinking - and also leads to the point of satisfaction: 'that's it'.

KEY DIFFICULTY
Throughout Thinking Managers I have hinted at a key difficulty facing creative thinkers. If a creative thinker aims for ideas that are simple, effective and practical, then that thinker will develop an aesthetic sense to fit. If a creative thinker aims for ideas that are bizarre, different, show-off and 'creative', then that thinker will not produce effective ideas.